1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Since people from war-torn nations often flee to Europe where they tend to get all kinds of help and support
They don't do that at all. That's a deceitful right-wing talking point meant to create xenophobic reactions.
People from war torn nations move to non-war torn parts of their own county, or their direct neighbors. Only a tiny fraction go further, and only a fraction of those go all the way to Europe.
They don’t do that at all.
One side exaggerates things and the other downplays them. Neither are being honest. This is the information landscape we live in now and then we wonder why nobody believes the same set of facts.
Fair. I guess you could read my reply as "they don't flee to Europe at all", but I intended it as "they don't flee to Europe all that often".
I guess I could have been more clear there, but in my defense, I did elaborate.
Sure, pal. That's why there were so many of them in Europe. And I don't mean it in a bad way, it's pretty fucking normal to flee to a different country when there's war.
You people who need to debunk the right wing conspiracies so much that you create your own are a pretty wild breed.
Europeans would (will?) flee westward, away from Russian aggression.
Even if most of Europe is party to war, there will still be a front line and limited deep strikes. You don’t just have continent wide war with no place to flee to.
If Russia starts dropping nukes then it won’t be a Europe-problem anyways….
The vast majority of people fleeing from war-torn countries today do not flee to Europe. They flee to safer areas within their own countries, then to neighboring countries, then to other culturally similar countries. The number of people who try to make it all the way to Europe and then succeed pales in comparison.
The narrative that there's a huge migration wave from unstable third world countries to Europe is a lie perpetuated by the right wing.
THIS
They don't! And that's why I made no such statement!
I repeat what I stated in response to somebody else:
I am not interested in a political discussion nor in the overly-common mud-slinging that desperately attempts to label everyone either a hateful nazi or a moronic lefty. I simply wonder where Europeans would flee to, if there were a war that engulfs all of Europe.
Alas, since you seem to be more interested in other discussions: Saying people don’t flee from war to Europe seems highly deceitful in itself. I just looked at the statistics from Germany (which brought me to my question): By mid-2024, there were roughly 3.5 Million refugees in Germany. Over one million of them were from Ukraine. For the whole of the EU, there appear to be almost 7 million refugees from war-torn areas and a total of 13 million refugees in total (includes internally displaced people), and 1.7 million asylum applicants. Those appear to be official numbers and not right-wing talking points. I suppose in your mind, that means that people don’t flee to Europe?
https://www.unhcr.org/europe/europe-figures-glance-2023
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/zahl-gefluechtete-deutschland-100.html
How dare you bring logic in our conversation? You even attached sources of your information? That it, you done it, I'll report you!
What's the population of Germany again?
Oh wait, 83,577,140 - so that's just over 3% (3.589%)
That's fuck all. There's more LGBT people in Germany than that.
It's fine and dandy to throw around big numbers, but put them in context
And?
You conveniently ignore the stats, in does happen, instead introducing a goalpost move, aka sophistry, in an attempt to "win" an argument, or at least derail OPs point.
we will colonise the arctic and make New Skyrim
Hell nah, seasonal depression is already bad enough.
Dont worry! Climate change will fix that!
Uhhhh that's not how it works.
What about 6 month long days and nights?
Other European countries, other western countries like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand
Canadian here, we'll be there again if you all need us ❤️
Our federal government is making it much harder to immigrate here and many people are being forced to leave the country since they can't become a permanent resident anymore.
I agree with your sentiment, but our government and the average Canadian is far more anti-immigrant than 10 years ago.
Housing crisis really put a damper on things.
In an asylum scenario definitely can be considered but for migration in general we need to stabilize the housing and cost of living situation before we start inviting people over in my opinion. The population is also skewing more elderly (with immigration there being the only balancing factor) there and here so need go make sure our healthcare system is ready for such a migration without causing any institutional shocks.
These concerns have been raised by clans, tribes, cities, and countries in receipt of migrants since the dawn of time.
You're correct that migration needs to be balanced against the ability of the services and existing resources to support migrants, while acknowledging that migrants bring with them needed skills and investment.
You're probably also correct regarding the stability of housing and cost of living. That's how things are in Australia at present in any case.
However, asylum is a special class of migration. You're not accepting migrants because you want them, but because they will face persecution if you don't. If a stream of Europeans arrived on Canada's shores by boat, and they faced imprisonment on undue punishment if you returned them, would you provide them shelter?
It only you had massive amounts of land available
That's the least important consideration. When people arrive in the country they don't just get told "here's some land!" And dumped in an open field to make do. The resources needed for them are houses, jobs, health care, and so forth. We don't have vast amounts of that lying around unused.
dumped in an open field to make do.
Literally how Manitoba came to be. 🤣
It works both ways too: more immigration means more people to build roads/houses, staff hospitals etc.
Sure, but it takes time. There's no way we could handle a Europe's worth of refugees pouring in at once.
I live pretty much in the middle of nowhere that is between three mountains and a Scandinavian fjord. I don't see any safer alternatives to where I'm already at.
Any rooms for rent?
My basement. But it's full of wood debris pending a rebuild. Clean it out, and it's yours. Don't tell anyone, though, as I doubt it's legal to live there.
I will flee to neidu3.
Historically, Argentina and the USA.
The USA won't let them in, the way they didn't let in the Jews during WW2.
Yeah, but the non-Nazis need somewhere to go as well…
Some might get duped by the Brazilian govt to work on coffee plantations
This person histories lol
They flee to Switzerland aka Supereurope. After that you pray to the heavens.
(Random thoughts, I'm clueless about this subject, it's safer to assume I'm wrong about everything)
USA is an obvious first choice for many. I imagine other developed countries in the Americas will be hotspots too. The big question is which countries would accept mass influxes of European refugees.
I wonder if enough could flee to Africa, and bring some substantial wealth with them... Would that actually help Africa catch up to the developed world? Or would it instead just be new colonialism?
Of course Africa is huge, diverse and messy, so that's a very vague answer/question.
The USA is the exact opposite of safe. A record number of people are currently trying to leave or have left (I'm one of those)
So, this might change in the future and is not representative of every person here, but as an European, the USA would be one of the last places on my list to flee to if I had to. The current administration has made it more than clear that Europeans are not welcome (that doesn't speak for all US Americans, of course, but still).
Canada or a South American country like Brazil would be a much better choice.
If not America, there's North Africa (Tunisia, Egypt), Turkey (which is arguably part of Europe in certain ways) and maybe even a Caucasus state, depending on what kind of war I'm fleeing from.
Some of those might be better suited for a longer stay than others.
Odds are the USA will be on the wrong side of any major conflict and Canada would also be looking to Europe for support.
I don't think it will help that much. There's already a lot of rich people in Africa. If anything this would bring about gentrification in a lot of the parts.
But that isn't to say it will be a completely bad thing. (The people moving to African countries, not the gentrification). Maybe some parts of the economy will be stimulated.
USA is an obvious first choice for many.
I don't really think that this is true at all.
In the past the USA might have been appealing because there was real opportunity. If you show up, and work hard, there's a good life in a stable environment for your kids and their kids. Those financial opportunities don't seem to exist anymore, and the political and social environment seems... undesirable for migrants.
Presently the USA might be desirable for people already in the Americas because you can get there, and the currency exchange is favorable.
I wouldn't want to make generalisations about Africa. There might be some locations on the continent that would be suitable, but IDK about that. You certainly wouldn't want to be wealthier than the local population, because that dynamic wouldn't continue very long.
I don't think there's a sensible answer to OP's question. I imagine that only a minority group from Europe could really require 'asylum' (like Jewish people during WWII), and the answer depends on the nature of whichever group is seeking asylum.
Well, anyone who could flee my country already has, so probably nowhere.
South Africa, because I can.