Posts by Joshua Kelly51

Anthony Garcia19 said:One way to cause instability is by wrecking relationships between member states. Honestly, all of this could just be part of the same big plan.

It raises the question: were international relations actually stable enough before the White House crisis hit? ☕ It’s a logical conclusion: of course they aren't. ☕

Morgan Newman7 said:There’s always a war somewhere. Once things settle down in Syria, a new conflict pops up elsewhere. Does that mean the whole European Union should just maintain an endless open-door policy for refugees and migrants forever?

Is there even a political party in America that supports helping refugees during their journey as part of forced migration?

In America, there hasn't been a Party like that for quite some time.

Sure. ☕

Look, I didn't exactly write it in all caps. ☕ So, you're asking me to list which political parties support providing aid to refugees? Real helpful. ☕ Trenuno, I didn't realize we had those kinds of people here in America. ☕

neonhound18 said:I believe I mentioned that The perfect shitstorm is brewing across Europe; my only real hope is that we avoid full-blown civil wars, though once this passes, Europe will certainly never be the same again. 🕺

Over the last three years, the political parties popping up across the European Union clearly have zero love for foreigners, immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers. Honestly, we should probably thank them. ☕

Nicole Nguyen6 said:What you're describing sounds like a conquered nation being forced to grant a special, protected, and privileged status to foreigners, and then having that status written right into the Constitution. It’s like the people lose their right to have any say in the numbers coming into their own country. On the flip side, the conquerors don't owe anything to the country they enter; their relationship with it is based entirely on their own whims and how much they enjoy their privileges.

Also, that phrase you used about "learned behavior of society" is interesting. It implies that a society has to be forcibly modified through repression to reconcile itself with a loss of sovereignty. I mean, saying a society needs to "learn" something basically assumes some outside power is dominating them, steering them away from the path they would have taken on their own if they were actually in control.

Look at how different societies have handled immigrants—some well, some poorly. What do you think causes these varying state reactions? ☕

Immigrants aren't conquerors, and changing the culture they move into isn't their goal. ☕ You might be missing the point that immigrants represent a distinct subgroup within any society they join. ☕

"Learned behavior" should be based on basic humanity and sharing a planet, not on a forced rejection of one's own identity just because someone else adopts a foreign one—provided that foreign identity isn't actively trying to dismantle the local culture. ☕

Buratina1 said:Let’s be clear: immigrants are draining more welfare than the local population. Total parasites.

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

Hmm, the sample size for both immigrant and native households was 25,000 back in 2008—literally the same year as the Great Recession here in the US.

The statistical reports, including the one linked above, clearly explain the methodology used and the inherent limitations of the study.

People who don't understand statistics shouldn't be citing studies like this. If you aren't sure, ask. Don't just use data as an excuse to label immigrants as parasites.☕

Why are refugees—people caught up in forced migration waves—so poorly protected during their journey through Europe?

You won't find a clearer example of this divide anywhere else.
...than under the current European Union regime.

The European Union has paved the way for off-shore processing of migrants and asylum seekers by utilizing its Mobility Partnerships and Readmission Agreements with neighboring and Transit countries.
Mobility Partnerships and Readmission Agreements with neighbouring and Transit countries, a process known as... "Rebordering.".
Meanwhile, closer to Europe itself, a battery of instruments and interventions,
primarily within the southern states and the Mediterranean, designed to bolster the security of the shared external border—
Frontex, EUROSUR, EASO3 and The Task Force for The Mediterranean
EASO3 and The Task Force for The Mediterranean. Constructed to manage the security of America and to meet the challenge of mixed migration flows, this process has relentlessly diminished the quality of protection for forced migrants. The politicization of protection finally means that protection now lies at the crossover of human rights, legal and normative precepts, and politics—which is potentially the most disturbing evidence for the fragmented landscape of protection. Conclusion: instead of enhanced protection, this fragmented landscape has resulted in a protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a growing protection crisis.
manage the security of America and to meet
Dealing with the mess of mixed migration flows is a massive headache.
Constructed to manage the security of America and to meet the challenge of mixed migration flows, this process has relentlessly diminished the quality of protection for forced migrants. The politicization of protection finally...
Constructed to manage The security of Europe and to meet The challenge of mixed migration flows , this process Has relentlessly diminished The quality of Protection for forced migrants The politicisation of Protection Finally

Constructed to manage The security of Europe and to meet The challenge of mixed migration flows , this process Has relentlessly diminished The quality of Protection for forced migrants The politicisation of Protection Finally. The fact that Protection now Lies AT The cross-over of human rights , legal and normativ precepts , and politics is potentially The most disturbing evidence for The fragmented landscape of Protection. Conclusion Instead of enhanced Protection , this fragmented landscape Has resulted in a Protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a Growing protectioncrisis.

The most unsettling proof that our protection system is falling apart is the fact that protection now lies at the cross-over of human rights, legal and normativ precepts, and politics.
Protection has drifted into a highly politicized arena, completely detached from its original purpose.
The system has drifted far from its original principles. In practice, the concept of protection has been hijacked and weaponized to serve narrow national agendas and a political narrative focused entirely on securitization.
migration and asylum (mostly within post-industrial nations) at the
It’s happening at the expense of migrant rights and safety. The fact that Protection now Lies AT The cross-over of human rights, legal and normativ precepts, and politics is potentially The most disturbing evidence for The fragmented landscape of Protection. The fact that protection now lies at the cross-over of human rights, legal and normative precepts, and politics is potentially the most disturbing evidence for the fragmented landscape of protection.
The fact that Protection now Lies AT The cross-over of human rights, legal and normativ precepts, and politics is potentially The most disturbing evidence for The fragmented landscape of Protection. Conclusion Instead of enhanced Protection, this fragmented landscape Has resulted in a Protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a Growing protectioncrisis..

Conclusion Instead of enhanced Protection , this fragmented landscape Has resulted in a Protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a Growing protectioncrisis

Conclusion Instead of enhanced Protection , this fragmented landscape Has resulted in a Protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a Growing protectioncrisis
Conclusion Instead of enhanced Protection , this fragmented landscape Has resulted in a Protection regime that lacks coherence and fairness and in a Growing protectioncrisis, particularly along the borders of the United States.

As a result, people fleeing for their lives are becoming more vulnerable by the day, while their basic human dignity and fundamental rights are being pushed further and further to the sidelines.

How do we actually build and refine a system of protection? It isn’t just about drafting new policies and hoping they stick; it’s about evolution. You can't just set a standard and walk away while the world changes around you. To make protection work, you have to bridge the gap between theoretical ideals and the messy, unpredictable reality on the ground.
established standards and practical approaches designed to address
Totally different patterns and dynamics.
population displacement in the
The modern era, when held up against the past.
The situation where normative principles and political interests collide is exactly what we're seeing now. It’s a mess. When you look at how policy is being shaped, it's clear that the core values meant to protect people are getting sidelined by political maneuvering. We've reached a point where protecting human rights isn't just about the law anymore; it's become a political football. This fragmentation is a disaster for anyone actually looking for real protection.
International frameworks weren't built this way from the start. Originally, they were designed with much more intentionality.
The groundwork is laid, but the real challenge is still ahead.

A highly professional, deeply technical analysis was published last month:

FMR Forced Migration Review Roger Zetter ☕

Roger Zetter roger.zetter@qeh.ox.ac.uk
emeritus Professor, Refugee Studies center,
University of Oxford. www.rsc.ox.ac.uk
this article draws on The analysis of a recent study for The Swiss Federal Commission on Migration
this article draws on The analysis of a recent study for The Swiss Federal Commission on Migration
Migration.

An open letter:

Check out the latest open letters over at

c/p :

An open letter: A call for scientists to embrace tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

Every day, we see news reports about people caught in refugee lines in our neighboring countries, just trying to find a safe place to live and a future for their kids. Beyond the basic struggle to survive, they face endless obstacles designed specifically to block them from entering or moving through Western nations. This only deepens the misery of people who were forced to flee their homes in search of security. Given how the media usually frames this, we need to clarify one thing: these are forced migrants. They didn't choose this; they were driven out by a perfect storm of political instability, war, sheer survival, economic collapse, and the worsening effects of climate change. They are refugees, plain and simple. It’s time to stop using labels like "adventurers," "deserters," "fakes," "criminals," or "terrorists"—terms often thrown around by biased media outlets and certain politicians to distort the reality of the situation.

It’s becoming impossible to ignore the rising tide of anti-immigrant rhetoric sweeping through America and much of Europe. We’re seeing a surge in statements designed to fuel fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. This kind of discourse isn't harmless; it builds a foundation for hostility, hate speech, and discrimination. Ultimately, this atmosphere can escalate into actual violence against people in need—whether they are just passing through a community or settling down there. With recent talk regarding potential mass arrivals at our borders, we want to take this opportunity to dismantle some of the common myths and prejudices surrounding refugees and migrants. As both citizens and members of the scientific community, we are calling for tolerance, solidarity, and basic humanity.

The point of this letter is to sound the alarm on the risks posed by distorted perceptions regarding refugees entering the country. While research suggests that American society doesn't typically exhibit extreme xenophobia on this issue, you can still find a massive amount of online commentary fueling ethnic and religious intolerance—sometimes even inciting outright violence against refugees. In the current climate, this kind of rhetoric only serves to radicalize public opinion further. Because of this, we believe it is essential for official government agencies to step up and provide clear communication. Citizens need to be informed about the actual situation, the root causes driving people to arrive, and the basic rights and needs of refugees. Doing so would help foster a sense of solidarity within American society. Unfortunately, we’ve recently heard narrow-minded, xenophobic, and Islamophobic stances coming from certain domestic politicians regarding this so-called "refugee crisis." We want to remind these individuals that their actions are instrumental in shaping public opinion. They carry a heavy moral and political responsibility when it comes to these issues.

Research shows that how government policymakers frame refugee policy directly shapes public opinion. It’s just as much about personal experience—actually knowing asylum seekers or having lived through displacement ourselves. If we want to prevent xenophobia, the best defense is simple: better information, critical thinking, and actual human connection to these stories. As scientists, academics, and students, our job is to foster critical thinking rooted in hard evidence. Right now, amid this refugee crisis—defined by border walls, military deployments, and a total breakdown of humanitarian values—extremism is gaining ground. Fear and panic are being manufactured. We need to strip the political theater and high-tension rhetoric away from discussions regarding migration and its aftermath. It is both a political and a scientific responsibility to move this conversation back to the facts. This isn't a passing phase; this is a permanent feature of our society and the global landscape. We need a real debate, not a shouting match.

As scientists, we’re calling for a bit of sanity in this debate. We need moderate, measured rhetoric from everyone involved—not fear-mongering or panic, but an approach rooted in tolerance and solidarity. We also urge those working directly with refugees to maintain a proactive, positive stance by highlighting real-world success stories. What the public needs right now is critical thinking, empathy, and genuine support. The United States has a moral imperative to act decisively toward those seeking protection. This isn't just about following international law and our own legal obligations; it’s about remembering our own history. We know what it feels like to be displaced, and we remember when Americans were looking for refuge abroad and found open doors in other countries. Furthermore, we need to fix the cracks in the American asylum system. There are still too many gaps, particularly when it comes to setting people up for success. Once someone is granted protection or enters through the quota system, they need the functional tools required to integrate and build independent lives. The U.S. certainly has the capacity, the experience, and the will to make that happen.

Look, despite all the socioeconomic mess in America that keeps driving our own people to move away, we can't ignore the refugees arriving now looking for help. These two issues aren't linked by cause and effect; they're separate problems. If we look back at how Americans stepped up during the crises of the nineties, or even how neighbors rallied together during last year's massive flooding, we know what solidarity looks like. We need to provide support to those seeking a fresh start on American soil. Their needs are massive, especially when it comes to mental health and psychosocial support. Beyond the formal institutional aid, regular citizens can make a difference through simple, basic acts of kindness. The challenges ahead are significant, but I'm confident they're solvable. It’s time for both the public and the academic community to step up and actually engage with the reality of the refugee situation.

🙂☕

Someone brought up Canada.

Regarding that summer school/seminar series on the topic of refugees:

Because our asylum systems are so poorly structured, refugees often move through the system before anyone can actually assess their specific needs for protection. The real red flag here is the rising tide of unaccompanied or separated minors traveling through irregular routes. Even with all the massive resources international groups like the UN have poured into building up capacity, we're still seeing this gap. Most nations around here lack the actual bureaucratic muscle to protect or integrate newcomers, whether they're fleeing Syria or other crises. There's no real infrastructure to handle people with specific needs. On top of that, asylum seekers often avoid looking for protection in places like Canada, Mexico, or the US because the system is rigged against them. Between the restrictive legal hurdles—which lead to dismal approval rates—and the total lack of real integration opportunities, the standard of care just isn't there.


Key takeaways from the lecture:

Here’s the bottom line from the school: The fact that our three current systems are failing to actually protect refugees is deeply concerning. It’s not just because they’re still being built out; it's more troubling that the only thing driving us toward a functional, fair, and humane asylum system is external pressure and meeting specific requirements for international integration.

The US, Mexico, Mexico, and the rest of the North American states are legally tied to their commitments. As signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 protocol, they have a full obligation to provide international protection to anyone fleeing persecution. It’s not optional.

The lecture took place three months ago ☕

Source:

I finally get the point of these talks now. They’re actually useful, especially for people who need to work on developing some genuine empathy for others and those who see the world differently 👍☕