And I share that sentiment. But if we talk about a topic like terrorism and people, I am afraid that we have no other choice but to delve deeply in to it and that there are no simple solutions. Who knows? Maybe there might not even be solution at all. Even Mathematics, one of the most logic science knows problems that can't be solved.
Sometimes you have no other choice but between bad and very bad.
You can close borders. If that's effective or not, is a whole different question. The European Union has invested a lot in their borders and border controll. There is a certain point though, where you have to ask your self if it's simply not more cost effective, to well, help the refugees and immigrants instead of building walls, fences and surveilance that you have to maintain and actually operate with people. We easily forget that operating a large fleet in the mediterrian is extremly costly. A huge drain of resources. I also think that we should somehow look in to the reasons why people want to migrate to Europe. If it has economic reasons, then we must look how we can improve their situation at home, if possible. If it is about safety, we should look how we can make their situation more stable.
Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years a report from 2014 showed, that WHAS JUST in Britain, before this migrant crisis.
it seems like your main argument is ''Sheeit, it costs money to have a border'' It will cost money either way. At this moment im more worried about the future of Western civilization then the false notion that money trumps safety.
I can assure you, allowing millions of often illiterate, 20s something men, with low IQ, and with medival values, and a crazy belife system - Will not be ''the lesser evil''
homogeneous societies are better
Im from Norway, and almost 100% White country, and im telling you its great.
There is a fair volume of literature from political economy that shows homogeneous societies are better able to provide public goods and social goods. Practically speaking, this means that they're typically better able to fund things like education, healthcare, social safety nets (welfare) and public broadcasting. The logic here is that with ethnic or cultural heterogeneity typically overlaps with economic cleavages. You end up with the better off group feeling they're subsidizing "other people"; i.e., their 'national healthcare' covers people who they don't fully feel to be part of their nation. This inspires them to oppose such policies. In the US, for example, some whites feel that public healthcare, education, and welfare resources are disproportionately used by people whom they don't consider to be fully American.
Harvard did a study. The more integrated your neighborhood, the less you voted, measurements of happiness were lowered, the less altruistic you were. Diversity is a disaster at the local level.
Except for a few rarities like Canada, one could quite easily deduce that developed countries like Britain or Sweden, contrary to popular belief, are also among the
most homogenous nations. Yes there are many minorities in Britain, but on the whole the vast majority of people share a common ethnic or national identity. On the other hand, some of the most ethnically diverse countries are in Africa, Central Asia, South East Asia, and Latin America.
Correlation is not always causation but what this map shows is that development has a high correlation between successful economic development and ethnic homogeneity. As an amateur enthusiast in developmental economics, I do certainly believe that there are other important factors that explain why a country is rich, but ethnic diversity should be taken into some account.
