Refugee towns?

[AqD]

Why don't we build refugee towns to deal with temporary refugees rather than the current way of resettling them in existing society? Or more precisely, help refugees to build their own towns.

Our resettlement system particular in Europe has been proven a disaster to both of refugees and existing residents, not to mention it's simply impossible to absorb large population such as millions of Ukrainians, and the lack of capacity only would encourage more abuses and conflicts. It's also unsustainable for government to maintain large numbers of staff since refugee influx is unpredictable and temporary.

But we have plenty of empty land available - enough for them to build houses, schools, hospitals and farms etc. While those wouldn't be so efficient or remotely self-sufficient, it should require far less manpower drawn from existing public services that would negatively affect locals, and also provide them lots of useful things to do, since most wouldn't be able to find meaningful job that pays more than welfare without going through very extensive language and then job training that won't be needed when they finally return home.

A major drawback I can see is that there would be little integration or compulsory reasons for it - unless they have relatives outside and suitable jobs.


What do you guys think? Are there any precedents?

[mishkin]

as a precent apartheid comes to my mind. why do you think something like that is necessary?

[Cyclops]

I think when a country takes refugees they need to assess if they want to keep them, or move them on later. If they want to move them on it helps to keep them in hell holes, without internal organisation and without creating corporate spirit that might allow to them to exert political power by going on hunger strikes or what not and make it hard to move them out when the time comes. In Australia we do a pretty good line in this.

If you want to keep them then usually you want to integrate them into wider society, teach them the local language, give them little loans, job opportunities so they start to pay taxes, don't spike the crime rate, and don't get ghettoised etc. In Australia we also do a good line in this.

If you let refugees build towns, with even the most basic support services and infrastructure, then you create a political unit, from another country, that have somehow pissed someone else off. You have to give them a piece of land, and the power to organise. Why would anyone do this?

[Flinn]

What about no? I don't like gulags or concentration camps, honestly.
If you "put people in a specific place" and "lock them in there" (because otherwise if they can go wherever they want, the whole thing becomes pointless), then by definition you are confining them. When a people (whether willingly or not) accepts refugees, it should always and only be with the purpose of integrating them in their own society, in the most efficient and fast way possible.

If you want to keep them then usually you want to integrate them into wider society, teach them the local language, give them little loans, job opportunities so they start to pay taxes, don't spike the crime rate, and don't get ghettoised etc. In Australia we also do a good line in this.

Pretty much this.

It has happened at times in history that there was no choice but to allow these "refugees" on your lands, but that never ended well anyways, one faction always ended up to devour the other... more often than not is was the original civilization that lost the struggle.

I would suggest to watch this movie.. putting things in perspective helps in getting why limiting people's freedom is always the worst choice.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why don't we build refugee towns to deal with temporary refugees rather than the current way of resettling them in existing society? Or more precisely, help refugees to build their own towns.

Our resettlement system particular in Europe has been proven a disaster to both of refugees and existing residents, not to mention it's simply impossible to absorb large population such as millions of Ukrainians, and the lack of capacity only would encourage more abuses and conflicts. It's also unsustainable for government to maintain large numbers of staff since refugee influx is unpredictable and temporary.

But we have plenty of empty land available - enough for them to build houses, schools, hospitals and farms etc. While those wouldn't be so efficient or remotely self-sufficient, it should require far less manpower drawn from existing public services that would negatively affect locals, and also provide them lots of useful things to do, since most wouldn't be able to find meaningful job that pays more than welfare without going through very extensive language and then job training that won't be needed when they finally return home.

A major drawback I can see is that there would be little integration or compulsory reasons for it - unless they have relatives outside and suitable jobs.

What do you guys think? Are there any precedents?

What makes you think this would be feasible? Refugee crisis is often built up over a short time with refugee population reaching millions. What you're suggesting is creating an entire new ecosystem that would require much more manpower to the contrary of what you suggest.

[antaeus]

For a precedent... For the purposeful creation of permanent or semi-permanent townships for refugees... Try Bangladesh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasan_Char



Although I'm with the above... There is significant danger in ghettoisation of minority or disenfranchised groups. Offering refugee accommodation is in principle temporary and for emergency relief. If if becomes permanent, then integration into the wider community is essential. Refugees should be integrated into the wider productive community of the supporting country, rather than second class non-citizens. This doesn't mean giving up on their hopes or right to return. It just means normalising their lives in the meantime. If the nation that takes them in can't do this, then they should facilitate and support movement into another third party that can.

[AqD]

What about no? I don't like gulags or concentration camps, honestly.
If you "put people in a specific place" and "lock them in there" (because otherwise if they can go wherever they want, the whole thing becomes pointless), then by definition you are confining them. When a people (whether willingly or not) accepts refugees, it should always and only be with the purpose of integrating them in their own society, in the most efficient and fast way possible.

I'm not suggesting to confine them, but without a job or economic means they're already self-confined wherever they are.

The current way of "integrating" is passive - a refugee is not actively guided every step but need to first find local support (non-government; up to exploitation), then apply various government services that help refugees, permanent housing and language school etc.

After which he or she would have close to zero chance to get a job. Learning local language does not guarantee a job - there are plenty of natives with degree and still don't have jobs, and there is no reason for companies to recruit foreign born people who only speak half the language. If companies are given benefits to hire like in germany it'd hurt its own lowly educated locals.

Also the very idea they have free movement is just a pipedream - free housing or allowance has to be requested and if it's not public housing they'd need to be able to secure a rental contract first, which put them at disadvantage. If it's public housing they'd be competing with locals on already strained public resource because there are tons of locals living on welfare too - contention brings conflicts.

What makes you think this would be feasible? Refugee crisis is often built up over a short time with refugee population reaching millions. What you're suggesting is creating an entire new ecosystem that would require much more manpower to the contrary of what you suggest.

Yes creating a new ecosystem is exactly what I meant.

Because 1) integration is extremely slow and largely broken in Europe. The existing ecosystem cannot sustain millions of freeloaders without creating serious problems. And it has already created many problems, see Sweden for example.

2) since they'd otherwise be without jobs, they could spend time to build a new ecosystem, which is what they'll have to do again when they return home, if they want to return. If they don't, it still gives me some useful and positive experience, rather than spending everyday queueing for gov service, watching bad news and worrying, and after a decade of negative thinking and unemployment they'd probably need psychological support and police monitoring for terrorism tendency!

A new ecosystem including houses, hospitals, schools, fire departments, farms, etc. With a large population of refugees, they could eventually fill all essential roles themselves and all it'd require from host country are materials, equipment (much cheaper compared to manpower), inspectors, technical training, initial staff, and all the allowances normally granted to refugees in the form of money, which could then be saved than emptied every month as they'd fulfil some of their own needs in the end.

And of course there would be no restriction of movement or anything treating them differently than a normal resident. They'd be free to travel and move permanently if they can - I doubt many of first generation would be able to.

As a side benefit, such projects instead of sucking up public service for no good, would employ tons of private businesses which would be good for popularity.

There is significant danger in ghettoisation of minority or disenfranchised groups.

ghetto is what would happen, when millions of people surviving on welfare are sent to live in large cities, already bad planned, overpopulated, lacking in residential units and public services, and then better-to-do residents move out and more jobless people move in.

A new town avoids that problem completely because as it's new on previously unused land, there would be plenty of space for proper planning.

PS: I don't mean suburbs! A self-contained, or expected to be self-contained town could be built in some very remote place so long there are roads, with basically unlimited area for their use.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes creating a new ecosystem is exactly what I meant.

Because 1) integration is extremely slow and largely broken in Europe. The existing ecosystem cannot sustain millions of freeloaders without creating serious problems. And it has already created many problems, see Sweden for example.

2) since they'd otherwise be without jobs, they could spend time to build a new ecosystem, which is what they'll have to do again when they return home, if they want to return. If they don't, it still gives me some useful and positive experience, rather than spending everyday queueing for gov service, watching bad news and worrying, and after a decade of negative thinking and unemployment they'd probably need psychological support and police monitoring for terrorism tendency!

A new ecosystem including houses, hospitals, schools, fire departments, farms, etc. With a large population of refugees, they could eventually fill all essential roles themselves and all it'd require from host country are materials, equipment (much cheaper compared to manpower), inspectors, technical training, initial staff, and all the allowances normally granted to refugees in the form of money, which could then be saved than emptied every month as they'd fulfil some of their own needs in the end.

And of course there would be no restriction of movement or anything treating them differently than a normal resident. They'd be free to travel and move permanently if they can - I doubt many of first generation would be able to.

As a side benefit, such projects instead of sucking up public service for no good, would employ tons of private businesses which would be good for popularity.

An ecosystem is not built for free. Building one would take years making it not feasible when such a crisis arise. If built preemptively it requires maintenance which is costly. The idea that such an ecosystem can be built using the refugees is simply delusional. They wouldn't only require materials from the host country. They would require skills, coordination, inspection, infrastructure and much more. What you're proposing would cost a lot more to the alternative.

[antaeus]

PS: I don't mean suburbs! A self-contained, or expected to be self-contained town could be built in some very remote place so long there are roads, with basically unlimited area for their use.

So essentially (sorry, straw man), you're suggesting that a host nation gives up it's own territory and wealth to allow the creation of a miniature version of the country the people are fleeing. Apart from that being of no benefit to the host nation and likely politically and financially untenable, it also defacto endorses what ever actions led them to becoming refugees in the first place.

Other than that, the Bangladeshi scenario linked above is your thing. As are all the existing criticisms of that scenario. It's being done. Let's see how it turns out.

[Flinn]

I'm not suggesting to confine them, but without a job or economic means they're already self-confined wherever they are.

Precisely The only thing you need to give them is integration: a job, same rights and same obligations of any other citizen of that country. If you can't grant them that, do not take them.

And if you are worried about them "not going back to their homes", that's a non case honestly: the day you flee from your home, it's very unlikely you'll want to be back to it anytime soon, if at all.

[AqD]

An ecosystem is not built for free. Building one would take years making it not feasible when such a crisis arise. If built preemptively it requires maintenance which is costly. The idea that such an ecosystem can be built using the refugees is simply delusional. They wouldn't only require materials from the host country. They would require skills, coordination, inspection, infrastructure and much more. What you're proposing would cost a lot more to the alternative.

What's so the costly about having temporary places and then helping refugees to build their own homes so long as there are roads connecting to the area? Cities in US were built from scratch by inhabitants, most of them would be considered uneducated and unskilled today. Today there are also premade building blocks, filters and tons of new and second handed equipment that can be sent to them.

Precisely The only thing you need to give them is integration: a job, same rights and same obligations of any other citizen of that country. If you can't grant them that, do not take them.

Technically anyone can move within EU border to get a job, housing and start life in a completely different country. But how many of them can actually do that, except those in high tech fields? If even citizens of EU members cannot do that easily, how are we supposed to expect refugees from other countries to integrate?

Of course they all have the same rights and the same benefits, but so are the locals condemned to living on welfare forever, and that's no small number of the population.

So essentially (sorry, straw man), you're suggesting that a host nation gives up it's own territory and wealth to allow the creation of a miniature version of the country the people are fleeing. Apart from that being of no benefit to the host nation and likely politically and financially untenable

There is no benefit in the existing scheme. Rather, refugees compete with the weakest parts of existing society on public resource and make life worse for both. See my reasoning above for job opportunity - cheap manpower is simply not needed and so called integration is a very slow process and could only be hoped for their kids, if they ever grow up under healthy environment (and it's not healthy, to be forced into unemployment and welfare for life and have your culture despised by everyone).

Examples could easily be found in Germany, France and Sweden. How many of centuries old non-whites families moved there and how many of them received higher education and work in expert or management positions?

it also defacto endorses what ever actions led them to becoming refugees in the first place.

So you wish to disperse them in order to destroy their old culture? Isn't that cultural genocide?

[antaeus]

So you wish to disperse them in order to destroy their old culture? Isn't that cultural genocide?

Perhaps you don't live in a multicultural society? I walk down the street and see restaurants, community centres, schools, religious buildings from dozens of cultures. Why does integration = genocide? Unless you advocate societal monoculture?

I appreciate you thinking laterally around the refugee issue. But I just don't think ghettoization is the solution.

[PointOfViewGun]

What's so the costly about having temporary places and then helping refugees to build their own homes so long as there are roads connecting to the area? Cities in US were built from scratch by inhabitants, most of them would be considered uneducated and unskilled today. Today there are also premade building blocks, filters and tons of new and second handed equipment that can be sent to them.

This shows a complete disregard for intricacies of city building. You clearly think that the cost of building such a structural complex mostly relies on labor. It's not. It's not just roads connecting the area. It's sewage, rain drainage, water, internet, heating and electricity infrastructure that's needed. The cities that were built in USA by unskilled workers were not cities of today. Over the decades much of those cities have been replaced with complex structure by skilled workers. We're not talking about creating a village for 50 people. We're talking about creating a city that can house a million people. Everything you suggest we use are not some magical material that a baby can use to build structures.

[mishkin]

Technically anyone can move within EU border to get a job, housing and start life in a completely different country. But how many of them can actually do that, except those in high tech fields? If even citizens of EU members cannot do that easily, how are we supposed to expect refugees from other countries to integrate?

that is the crux of the matter exactly; people have a problem with foreign workers struggling to survive in your country, but no problem with upper class immigrants who are not even called immigrants, they are expats or just foreigners living in your country. you tolerate the lower class and the local lumpen, but you absolutely do not tolerate the foreign lower class living in your country. as an example your opening post; you want them hidden. integration or culture are mere excuses to reject them.

[Knight of Heaven]

This is a very complex issue, and i dont think culture is irrelevant or an excuse either, when we talking about integration, i would say it plays a major factor, how migrant communities usually thrive, or not in a different country, regardless if they are low or upper or middle class.
At least from my experience. There is communities, that value entrepreneurship, more then others even if they are lower class, and that plays a significant role in their ability to survive, thrive in a new country. Chinese communities, or east Asian communities come to mind. And this is inherently linked to culture, its habits, its values and way of living. Some cultures prize education, and discipline in the household, others not as much. Others have a positive outlook on the host country culture and country, others definitely do not. On a large scale this influences how this communities, and individuals behave, interact, or are able to thrive in a new country.

From a host nation perspective i think this is not a problem that can be solved just by trowing money at it or making new cities, there is plenty of factors at play here, when we are talking about groups of people, and more so individuals in a new environment.

people have a problem with foreign workers struggling to survive in your country, but no problem with upper class immigrants who are not even called immigrants

Obviously, higher class immigrants tend to be investors either on property or business and that means taxes, or in general giving a constructive contribution to the society they are in, at least from a resource point of view. Lower classes tend to depend more on social programs, and on the social state help to either survive, or to get the skills they need to integrate and elevate their social paradigm. My view is this should be done, but it doesn't change the fact its a drain on the system, and the more people come in, the more the drain will be. Its simple math. Perhaps limits to what country can take properly isn't that outlandish imo.

Also it is negligent again from a cultural perspective, to expect social cohesion, or harmoniously function in any significant enough multicultural country, apparently even on medium and long term, specially when it exists a shock of culture values, and principles. As we are seeing across Europe right now.

[AqD]

Perhaps you don't live in a multicultural society? I walk down the street and see restaurants, community centres, schools, religious buildings from dozens of cultures. Why does integration = genocide? Unless you advocate societal monoculture?

Do you see any real Islamic or Confucian school where girls are forbidden? Any towns with sharia laws or where widows are told to burn themselves or fathers have the right to kill their children and wives, or cutting thieves' hands off as punishment?

What you call multi-culture is nothing but food, celebrations and all the difference colors that make you feel good but in fact a delusion. Many countries have been adapting western culture to a very high degree and effectively killed many of their own traditions.

that is the crux of the matter exactly; people have a problem with foreign workers struggling to survive in your country, but no problem with upper class immigrants who are not even called immigrants, they are expats or just foreigners living in your country. you tolerate the lower class and the local lumpen, but you absolutely do not tolerate the foreign lower class living in your country. as an example your opening post; you want them hidden. integration or culture are mere excuses to reject them.

1. "tolerate" is the wrong word here. You think most middle class parents would move to a place inhabited by locals who live on welfare and have higher percentage of alcoholism and violent crimes?

2. It's true I don't see any reason to welcome foreign lower class, except refugees - this is the same as defined in the immigration laws in most EU countries. If you're not a refugee, don't have higher education and can't get a high paying job, you're not welcome. How is this a bad thing? Nationality and residence rights are privileges.

3. Because, unlike locals living on welfare, many of which giving up any hope after years of frustration, refugees are new and motivated, not necessarily lower class back home, and most would have skills that are not considered useful in existing host society (e.g. foreign teacher license) but could be quite useful if entirely new towns are built for them. By forcing them to integrate and restart everything, they're basically condemned to live on welfare with no hope of better life. We have no solution to solve the long term unemployment among locals - how can we expect it'd work better for others?

4. The purpose of refugee programs is NOT to get immigrants and integrate them to boost population, economy or multi-culturalism (which is in fact about taking advantage of the refugees), but to help those in need.

5. Why would a refugee town have to be a failed place? Why can't it be successful, self sustaining while offering same freedom to residents and attracting locals to the culture by its success? Isn't it better to attract people to participate in different cultures than to force them to live with it?

[antaeus]

Do you see any real Islamic or Confucian school where girls are forbidden? Any towns with sharia laws or where widows are told to burn themselves or fathers have the right to kill their children and wives, or cutting thieves' hands off as punishment?

What you call multi-culture is nothing but food, celebrations and all the difference colors that make you feel good but in fact a delusion. Many countries have been adapting western culture to a very high degree and effectively killed many of their own traditions.

I get a sense of paranoia in this statement... There is in fact a mosque 200 metres from my house. With a school attached. To my knowledge it doesn't promote sharia in a literal sense any more than the Catholic church literally across the road from it promotes a literalist Bible interpretation. They both have stalls at the weekly local farmers market. It's all very twee. In both cases, the real world examples I'm showing you offer a direct contradiction to your assertion that I am delusional in my understanding of healthy multiculturalism.

I think you'll find that violence within a society is more a reflection of the relative wealth and happiness that society provides it's people, rather than a reflection of any set of cultural values. Cultural values are continuously changing and reshaping themselves.

All of which is almost besides the point. Other than the fact that I think it is better to invite refugees into a society to support their needs and requirements, rather than to isolate and separate them from society. Certainly, if they end up staying permanently because their home country is no longer viable, then it is in everyone's best interests that they become productive and happy members of the society they've joined. If there is a likelihood of their eventual return to their home, then if their stay as refugees is temporary then they can be managed as such, but longer term it is better that they get jobs and have access to hospitals, schools, pay taxes etc within the host country until they leave - i.e. pay for themselves - I would hazard a guess, that this assembly of circumstances is probably what most refugees would prefer too. To be contributors to the friendly society that has taken them in during their time of need.

Which brings me to further questions for you.

- Who pays for the ghettoised refugee settlement?
- If those refugees return home, what happens to the infrastructure?

[sumskilz]

There is in fact a mosque 200 metres from my house. With a school attached. To my knowledge it doesn't promote sharia in a literal sense any more than the Catholic church literally across the road from it promotes a literalist Bible interpretation. They both have stalls at the weekly local farmers market. It's all very twee. In both cases, the real world examples I'm showing you offer a direct contradiction to your assertion that I am delusional in my understanding of healthy multiculturalism.

Your example supports AqD's point. Western assimilated Muslims have drastically different views about Sharia on average than Muslims in predominately Muslim countries do. Although, there is also a gap between predominately Muslim countries who have had secularism forced on them and those that have not.

I think you'll find that violence within a society is more a reflection of the relative wealth and happiness that society provides it's people, rather than a reflection of any set of cultural values.

This assertion, although commonly made by Westerners, is at odds with the ethnographic literature. All cultures have values that dictate when violence is or isn't virtuous, and these criteria differ significantly between cultures. A father doesn't kill his own daughter who has behaved "immorally" because he has less wealth than others. I suspect the misconception reflected in your assertion is derived from understanding the causality of the correlation backwards. Although, I will also add the caveat that the methodologies used in the various happiness indexes tend to be weighted toward secular Western values and somewhat pseudoscientific, the latter mostly being due to the inapplicability of the scientific method to understanding subjective states, particularly cross-culturally.

Cultural values are continuously changing and reshaping themselves.

I'll agree with you on this one, but it's irrelevant to AqD's assertion. Westerners are generally only tolerant of superficial multiculturalism.

A closer example to true multiculturalism would be the Ottoman Empire, which allowed each of the ethnoreligious groups within its borders to govern themselves based upon their own laws.

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you see any real Islamic or Confucian school where girls are forbidden? Any towns with sharia laws or where widows are told to burn themselves or fathers have the right to kill their children and wives, or cutting thieves' hands off as punishment?
What you call multi-culture is nothing but food, celebrations and all the difference colors that make you feel good but in fact a delusion. Many countries have been adapting western culture to a very high degree and effectively killed many of their own traditions.

Basically, its not multiculturalism if it doesn't confirm to your biased opinion of what constitutes Islamic or Confucian. Then you talk about delusion...

[antaeus]

This assertion, although commonly made by Westerners, is at odds with the ethnographic literature. All cultures have values that dictate when violence is or isn't virtuous, and these criteria differ significantly between cultures. A father doesn't kill his own daughter who has behaved "immorally" because he has less wealth than others. I suspect the misconception reflected in your assertion is derived from understanding the causality of the correlation backwards. Although, I will also add the caveat that the methodologies used in the various happiness indexes tend to be weighted toward secular Western values and somewhat pseudoscientific, the latter mostly being due to the inapplicability of the scientific method to understanding subjective states, particularly cross-culturally.

Subjective morality, and cultural behaviour enforcement mechanisms are by-and-large diffused methods for enforcing societal power structures from the top down. An individual father, or a community of elders might enforce crushing penalties upon those in their community who stray, but the ultimate source of the cultural laws or norms they are enforcing stem from those who manage, or developed their society's socio-economic structure (and therefore those who manage and defend it's wealth).

Western societies have violent histories, with all the same baggage of cultural/community violence that all other societies have. And to draw this thread back to the topic, Western societies have had to deal with the same kinds of refugee crises as every other country. So I'm not entirely sure why that hand-waving is necessary. The only valid point of difference for Western societies is perhaps, through their history of cultural violence towards each other and everyone else, Western societies have accumulated enough wealth, that they've had time for their cultures to naval gaze on how they behave towards each other within their societies - which has led to lower intra-community coercive violence at the community level.

Either way, all this is just my opinionated wanderings and I may be wrong. But even if I'm wrong here, it doesn't suggest that it is feasible for countries to give up territory to fund/establish mini-ethnic-enclaves of refugees in their wilderness, when the current model for wealthy countries to resettle/manage refugees within their communities does an acceptable-enough job in many cases.