[Godstud]

Thailand has a very good economy, but doesn't allow for immigration, so your argument isn't applicable. That said, it's easy for people in ASEAN to come into Thailand to work. It's also not near the Middle East, which is an important factor. Also, Hungary is not a tropical land with gorgeous beaches and great quality of life, so yet more nonsense!

Do you want to make yet more stupid comparisons, or have I made the point about apples and oranges, well enough?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Thailand has a very good economy, but doesn't allow for immigration, so your argument isn't applicable.

Living standards are higher in Thailand than in Hungary? I don't understand what you mean when you say it doesn't allow for immigration. Could you clarify?

That said, it's easy for people in ASEAN to come into Thailand to work. It's also not near the Middle East, which is an important factor. Also, Hungary is not a tropical land with gorgeous beaches and great quality of life, so yet more nonsense!

It's easy for people in the EU to come into Hungary to work. How would you be able to compare the quality of life in Hungary and Thailand? Have you been to Hungary?

Do you want to make yet more stupid comparisons, or have I made the point about apples and oranges, well enough?

If you want to continue to argue for two positions that are diametrically opposed, you'll have to do better.

[Godstud]

Visiting Thailand is easy, but their immigration standards are downright silly, and less than 50 people per year actually become new Thai citizens.

I have not been to Hungary, but I have a lot of Hungarian friends who are living in Thailand now, and they are not retirees. They are young men in their late 20s who see opportunity, and it's better than in Hungary.

You don't think that a tropical country extremely far from the flood of refugees, with extremely stringent immigration requirements and with a bustling economy, isn't different from a Balkan country in the path of refugees, with a struggling economy isn't different enough? You're just taking a piss...

[Rugoz]

We all know why Hungarian losers go the Thailand, LoL.

[Godstud]

Hungarian winners, you mean. The losers stay in Hungary. My daughter's boyfriend is Hungarian, and they're living in the UK. Why would that be so, if Hungary was the land of opportunity that people make it out to be?

[Rugoz]

Hungarian winners, you mean. The losers stay in Hungary. My daughter's boyfriend is Hungarian, and they're living in the UK. Why would that be so, if Hungary was the land of opportunity that people make it out to be?

With the exception of 2016 Hungary had a positive net migration rate since 2010. Which is more than can be said about many other Eastern European countries.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/graph. ... olbox=data

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Visiting Thailand is easy, but their immigration standards are downright silly, and less than 50 people per year actually become new Thai citizens.

I have not been to Hungary, but I have a lot of Hungarian friends who are living in Thailand now, and they are not retirees. They are young men in their late 20s who see opportunity, and it's better than in Hungary.

You don't think that a tropical country extremely far from the flood of refugees, with extremely stringent immigration requirements and with a bustling economy, isn't different from a Balkan country in the path of refugees, with a struggling economy isn't different enough? You're just taking a piss...

As an aside, there is a difference between being able to immigrate and being able to become a citizen. There are plenty of immigrants in Thailand.

If we are talking anecdotes, I know non-retired western Europeans who live in Hungary too. Looking at the numbers, the migrant stock in both countries isn't very different - about 5% of the population.

If Hungary's economy is shitty, as you chose to call it, then Thailand's is as well. Your reference to beaches and stringent immigration policy just confirms my point that there are other considerations for immigrants as well, and as it happens, Hungary also has a very stringent immigration policy when it comes to economic migrants that claim to be refugees.

To go back on topic, you made the point in other threads - and you actually felt very strongly about this at the time - that the economy and money isn't everything and that Thailand had many other things to offer that you appreciate which made up for its developing country status. The question was how you square this with your rather petty position with respect to Hungary's economy and attractiveness to migrants in this thread.

[Godstud]

I know non-retired western Europeans who live in Hungary too. Looking at the numbers, the migrant stock in both countries isn't very different - about 5% of the population.

I was not referring to retired Hungarians. These guys are working class Hungarians who have moved to other countries where the work is.

Thailand's economy remains very strong, despite what you might "think".

The question was how you square this with your rather petty position with respect to Hungary's economy and attractiveness to migrants in this thread.

Petty? Did someone hurt your feelings? That's a pretty weak insult if you're going to start into them. I am agreeing with Pants of Dog's assessment. If you don't like that, then that's your problem. Pants of Dog at least supported it with more than just a"No they don't!", argument.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I was not referring to retired Hungarians. These guys are working class Hungarians who have moved to other countries where the work is.

I wrote non-retired.

Thailand's economy remains very strong, despite what you might "think".

In that case, the Hungarian economy remains very strong as well, despite what you might "think". All I'm saying is that you can't describe one as shitty and the other as bustling when in actual fact Hungary's economy is no worse than that of Thailand. Surely that's not so difficult to understand.

Petty? Did someone hurt your feelings? That's a pretty weak insult if you're going to start into them. I am agreeing with Pants of Dog's assessment. If you don't like that, then that's your problem. Pants of Dog at least supported it with more than just a"No they don't!", argument.

Pants of dog has, to my knowledge, never expressed an opinion on or made an argument about Thailand and how attractive it is despite the downsides of being a developing country. I'm going to tease Pod when he is inconsistent, but at the moment you are my target because, as it happens, you have assumed two diametrically opposed positions and are still trying to defend them.

[foxdemon]

Thailand actually turns away a lot of refugees from Burma and has been doing so for decades.

What this thread shows is that refugees settle in those countries where the government allows them to. Neither Thailand nor Hungry allows it.

It also shows some people are talking about more than just fleeing for one’s life when they mention refugee. They conflate economic migration and refugees. Is it that the moral refugee issue is being used to legitimate a larger migration agenda? Or is it the result of mindless opposition to anything their political rivals might argue?

[Rugoz]

Neither Thailand nor Hungry allows it.

Lulz

[Pants-of-dog]

....
It also shows some people are talking about more than just fleeing for one’s life when they mention refugee. They conflate economic migration and refugees. Is it that the moral refugee issue is being used to legitimate a larger migration agenda? Or is it the result of mindless opposition to anything their political rivals might argue?

Well, during the recent refugee crisis, most people had fled war torn countries for their lives. They then ended up in refugee camps in Jordan and other local countries.

Then, the camps were overwhelmed with refugees and there were no jobs, and the wars are still going on. So some left the camps and headed to Europe in order to start over.

Are they refugees or economic migrants? Are they both?

Please note that this factual and rather humdrum explanation contradicts your claim about larger agendas or mindless opposition.

[One Degree]

Even the refugee crisis is debated in terms of the individual being superior to the community. Our compassion comes from a belief their individual well being is more important than their community welfare. For most of history until very recently, they would have been regarded as cowards unwilling to die for something larger than themselves.
My point being, we need to understand the real basis of our disagreements if we have any hope of understanding one another. It is all based upon ‘individual versus community’.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It also shows some people are talking about more than just fleeing for one’s life when they mention refugee. They conflate economic migration and refugees.

It's not dissimilar to the conflation of illegal and legal immigrants we are seeing the US.

Is it that the moral refugee issue is being used to legitimate a larger migration agenda? Or is it the result of mindless opposition to anything their political rivals might argue?

It's hard to argue in my view that this isn't motivated by an agenda, with polarisation appearing later partly in response.

Some of this can be explained with self selection whereby people choose different professions based on their natural inclinations and consequently end up in different strata of society. It just so happened that this led to a dominance of (often radical) left wingers in the media and other fields in many western countries. This was a post war development, with the effects starting to become noticeable in the 90s.

As an example, in Germany I'm aware of two surveys on the political orientation of journalists, one from 2006 and one from 2010, and in both the Greens come out on top among all German parties, with ~25% and ~35% respectively *. That percentage is even higher for females and the younger generation, so females entering the workforce and politics may also play a role in the transformation. In contrast, around 9% and 11% respectively consider themselves close to the CDU/CSU. See the Bundestag election results at the time for a comparison with the general population. The Greens are outspoken left-wing radicals when it comes to immigration, refugees and asylum. Since more than half of the German public still trusts the media, they are relying on a rather skewed picture on these and various other issues. I have a hard time imagining that the numbers have improved since then; if anything, they are probably worse.

* The 2006 survey covered only political journalists and "no party" was chosen by 36% making it the top choice. The 2010 survey had a representative sample of all journalists and 23% chose "no party". (German source)

Well, during the recent refugee crisis, most people had fled war torn countries for their lives. They then ended up in refugee camps in Jordan and other local countries.

Then, the camps were overwhelmed with refugees and there were no jobs, and the wars are still going on. So some left the camps and headed to Europe in order to start over.

Are they refugees or economic migrants? Are they both?

Please note that this factual and rather humdrum explanation contradicts your claim about larger agendas or mindless opposition.

They are clearly economic migrants. If the million or so people that arrived in Germany in 2015 now set off and came to Canada requesting asylum, nobody in their right mind would consider them refugees.

[Rugoz]

As an example, in Germany I'm aware of two surveys on the political orientation of journalists...

That's not unique to Germany. Where I live roughly 70% of journalists in the public and private media identify as "left to the center". More relevant are the political leanings of the publications though. The AfD might not be represented by any major publication, but neither is Die Linke as far as I can tell. In Switzerland where the SVP gets ~30% of the votes, the Weltwoche is a major publication, while there's nothing of the same circulation on the far left. It's readers who determine readership, not journalists.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not dissimilar to the conflation of illegal and legal immigrants we are seeing the US.

Are you discussing how legal migrants are subject to harassment by police because they are suspected of being illegal?

It's hard to argue in my view that this isn't motivated by an agenda, with polarisation appearing later partly in response.

Some of this can be explained with self selection whereby people choose different professions based on their natural inclinations and consequently end up in different strata of society. It just so happened that this led to a dominance of (often radical) left wingers in the media and other fields in many western countries. This was a post war development, with the effects starting to become noticeable in the 90s.

As an example, in Germany I'm aware of two surveys on the political orientation of journalists, one from 2006 and one from 2010, and in both the Greens come out on top among all German parties, with ~25% and ~35% respectively *. That percentage is even higher for females and the younger generation, so females entering the workforce and politics may also play a role in the transformation. In contrast, around 9% and 11% respectively consider themselves close to the CDU/CSU. See the Bundestag election results at the time for a comparison with the general population. The Greens are outspoken left-wing radicals when it comes to immigration, refugees and asylum. Since more than half of the German public still trusts the media, they are relying on a rather skewed picture on these and various other issues. I have a hard time imagining that the numbers have improved since then; if anything, they are probably worse.

* The 2006 survey covered only political journalists and "no party" was chosen by 36% making it the top choice. The 2010 survey had a representative sample of all journalists and 23% chose "no party". (German source)

So what is this secret nefarious agenda?

First @foxdemon implies that there is a secret hidden agenda, then you jump on the bandwagon with some apparently unconnected info about German journalists.

They are clearly economic migrants. If the million or so people that arrived in Germany in 2015 now set off and came to Canada requesting asylum, nobody in their right mind would consider them refugees.

Sure. They are economic migrants who were forced to flee for their lives when their country was bombed.

The fact that this happens to fit the definition of refugees is irrelevant to some, I guess.

It seems that this deliberate attempt to ignore the fact that they fled for their lives (in order to characterise them as economic migrants) is part of an agenda to deny refugee claims to Muslim migrants.

—————————

Anyway, turns out Orban is not that popular:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-pr ... -1.4620446

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters marched Saturday in the Hungarian capital of Budapest, demanding a new election and a new national electoral system in the biggest opposition rally in years.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban was re-elected for a fourth term last week. His right-wing populist Fidesz party won a supermajority in the national assembly, with preliminary results showing that Fidesz and tiny ally the Christian Democratic party won 134 seats in the 199-seat legislature.

Opposition supporters are upset that Hungary's electoral rules have given Orban's party such a large majority in Parliament when it only won around 50 per cent of the vote.

While the left-wing opposition parties won 12 of 18 seats at stake in Budapest districts, Fidesz won 85 of 88 seats outside the capital. The other 93 seats were allocated based on votes for party lists.

Protesters marched from the Opera to Parliament, shouting "New elections!" "We are the majority!" "Vik-tator!" and "Filthy Fidesz!"

So, about half the country doesn’t like the new ruling party.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

That's not unique to Germany. Where I live roughly 70% of journalists in the public and private media identify as "left to the center". More relevant are the political leanings of the publications though. The AfD might not be represented by any major publication, but neither is Die Linke as far as I can tell. In Switzerland where the SVP gets ~30% of the votes, the Weltwoche is a major publication, while there's nothing of the same circulation on the far left. It's readers who determine readership, not journalists.

Readership obviously matters too. On the other hand, I don't think that the unanimous response in the German media to the refugee crisis in 2015 would have been possible without this overwhelming left-leaning consensus. Not sure about Switzerland - as you guys are often an exception - but it's mainly the publications in the centre that move and become more representative of its reporters and editors.

Are you discussing how legal migrants are subject to harassment by police because they are suspected of being illegal?

No, but if true that would be yet another negative effect of illegal immigration on law abiding people.

So what is this secret nefarious agenda?

Not sure if I'd call it nefarious. It's just that left-wingers obviously have a different idea how we should organise our societies, what is acceptable discourse, etc. and left-wing radicals even more so.

Sure. They are economic migrants who were forced to flee for their lives when their country was bombed.

The fact that this happens to fit the definition of refugees is irrelevant to some, I guess.

It seems that this deliberate attempt to ignore the fact that they fled for their lives (in order to characterise them as economic migrants) is part of an agenda to deny refugee claims to Muslim migrants.

A poor person who comes into some wealth should no longer be considered poor and shouldn't get any financial assistance. In the same way, people who set off from a safe country to find a better life should not be considered refugees any longer.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but if true that would be yet another negative effect of illegal immigration on law abiding people.

And the fact that cops are stereotyping people based on race is no big deal?

Not sure if I'd call it nefarious. It's just that left-wingers obviously have a different idea how we should organise our societies, what is acceptable discourse, etc. and left-wing radicals even more so.

Yes, this is true.

But this is no secret, so why are you and @foxdemon saying it is?

A poor person who comes into some wealth should no longer be considered poor and shouldn't get any financial assistance. In the same way, people who set off from a safe country to find a better life should not be considered refugees any longer.

Sure. But that does not change the fact that they fled for their lives from war and persecution and are unable to return, nor does it change the fact that this is the definition of the word “refugee”.

Which is why it makes sense to see then as both refugees and economic migrants. Because they are both.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yes, this is true.

But this is no secret, so why are you and @foxdemon saying it is?

Are we?

Sure. But that does not change the fact that they fled for their lives from war and persecution and are unable to return, nor does it change the fact that this is the definition of the word “refugee”.

Which is why it makes sense to see then as both refugees and economic migrants. Because they are both.

It's more correct to see them as economic migrants, as they were safe and had no reason to leave other than wanting to improve their economic circumstances.

[Godstud]

It's more correct to see them as economic migrants, as they were safe and had no reason to leave other than wanting to improve their economic circumstances.

Safe is very relative. How were they safe in the refugee camps along Hungary's borders? Your idea of safe must be much different from mine.