Should refugees be women and children only?

[Bomb#20]

A distinction without an ethical difference. The reality is that many of the people refused will die as a consequence of being refused.

Not sure how you're getting that. It's not like you can get a flight from Damascus to Stockholm. People refused resettlement in Europe can stay in Turkey or Jordan without dying. But many people die as a consequence of accepting refugees -- letting the ones who make it to Europe stay there only incentivizes more of them to climb on board small rickety boats and try to make the dangerous crossing to Greece.

Whether the refusal itself is a "punishment" or ignoring a plea for help is irrelevant. Refusing people for organ transplants is similar not a "punishment" in a technical sense. Yet, the immorality of refusing people due solely to the gender is obvious,

It's not obvious. Organs are in short supply, and medically relevant but individually unknowable characteristics are strongly correlated with gender. Women statistically live longer than men. If you have an available kidney and you have to choose between using it to save a seventy-year-old man or a seventy-year-old woman, that kidney is probably going to give the woman more extra years of life. You might as well claim it's obviously immoral to charge men higher car insurance premiums than women.

and it applies equally to refusing a plea for help. It's gender discrimination and goes against modern ethics.

"Modern ethics"? Are you making an argumentum ad novitatem, or do you have reason to think the modern ethics it goes against are correct ethics?

If a million people are pleading for help because they're at risk of dying because Syria is a war zone, does that make it immoral for Sweden not to sacrifice Swedes for the sake of the Syrians? Five million people are pleading for help because they're at risk of dying because Burundi is a starvation zone. Does that make it immoral for Sweden not to sacrifice Swedes for the sake of the Burundians? If it's not the refusal to sacrifice Swedes but the discrimination that makes it immoral, what is it that makes war/starvation discrimination acceptable but gender discrimination unacceptable to modern ethics?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

mojorising,

Could you please clarify whether your "shoulds" are moral ones, and what obligations - if any - you're attributing to male refugees and to other governments?

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

Are you saying that men have a moral obligation to stay and fight?
For example, what if - say - Turkey allows them to enter as refugees, crossing the border from Syria. Are you or are you not implying that men would behave immorally if they do so?

If it's a means-ends "should", what if some of the men do not believe that the goal of trying to defeat whoever is attacking them (with very little chance of success, in the case of many men) is worth the very high risk to their lives?

They should have been kept in Syria to fight for their country.

That suggest that the government of countries that allow them in - either to stay or to go somewhere else - are failing to do what they should. But is that a moral "should", or some other "should"?

Islam does not mix well with secular western society and it is primarily adult males who bring the problems.

That one doesn't apply to other predominantly Muslim countries, like Turkey or Egypt.

 

[Bomb#20]

... and it applies equally to refusing a plea for help. It's gender discrimination and goes against modern ethics.

...Five million people are pleading for help because they're at risk of dying because Burundi is a starvation zone. ... If it's not the refusal to sacrifice Swedes but the discrimination that makes it immoral, what is it that makes war/starvation discrimination acceptable but gender discrimination unacceptable to modern ethics?

It should also be pointed out that Europe's prevailing practice is not just discrimination based on cause of need for help; it's de facto racial discrimination. European governments aren't just accepting Syrians with legitimate fear of becoming war casualties; they're taking in any random white guy from Jordan or Lebanon who wants a better life and destroys his papers and claims to be Syrian. They won't let a Burundian do that, because he's black. Is that acceptable to modern ethics?

 

[arkirk]

It sounds like a sweatshop owner's dream. In the U.S. where women make 77 cents to a dollar a man would make....only let in the cheapest of commodities for the sweatshop industry. There are always obvious differences between people,,,men, woman, black, white, Harvard educated, drop out, etc etc. The fact is they are all HUMAN BEINGS IN TROUBLE. The refugee situation should not reflect a shopping for cheap labor opportunity for sweat shop owners.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, denying refugees because of their gender would be more analogous to a company not hiring people because of their gender. If they don't give women jobs, they haven't taken anything away from them (they're still exactly as unemployed as they were before you rejected them) and they're simply directing their employment resources elsewhere towards men.

The trouble with arguing by analogy is that anybody can claim anything is analogous to anything. To me, those two things don't look analogous. In the first place, employment is a quid pro quo. What service is the host country asking for that the refugees are providing in exchange for being taken in? Taking in refugees looks to me a lot more like charity than employment. And in the second place, you appear to be suggesting that a government shouldn't get to do something because a company doesn't get to do it. Governments put all sorts of restrictions on companies that they don't put on themselves, from getting to be judge in their own cases to shooting people for not dropping their cell phones. What makes gender discrimination a special exception to the general government-isn't-analogous-to-company principle?

If you personally don't want to let men or women into your house, that's your business and you can do it for whatever reasons you want. If you want to give away your personal stuff to one group and not another group, that's your business and you can do it for whatever reasons you want. There are different standards for organizations like governments and corporations, however, and discrimination by them is a more serious issue.

And there are different standards for governments from corporations. For instance, a corporation can't discriminate based on marriage, at least not in my state. Governments discriminate based on marriage all the time, especially in immigration law. And governments discriminate specifically on sex, in their conscription laws.

Of course discrimination by government is a serious issue, in the sense that any act of government is a serious issue because it's backed up by force. Random border guards and consuls shouldn't be empowered to turn away all women except the hot ones even though I could do that in my house. A government ought to follow rule-of-law. It shouldn't discriminate against male refugees unless the legislature voted to and the law survived judicial review. But I'm not seeing anything in the U.S. constitution against it. Other countries have their own constitutional courts to figure it out; is there anything in the Canadian constitution that you think would overrule Trudeau's plan?

Do you have an argument for why it's immoral for government to practice women-and-children-first that's reasoned from first principles rather than by analogy?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Canada already enacted a ban on single men.

Not quite, but they have enacted a preference for "families, women, children and sexual minorities at risk".

Sources:

http://www.cp24.com/news/single-men-not-shut-out-of-canada-s-refugee-effort-top-official-1.2675941

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html

 

[mojorising]

For example, what if - say - Turkey allows them to enter as refugees, crossing the border from Syria. Are you or are you not implying that men would behave immorally if they do so?

I don't think they have an absolute obligation to fight but I think they should consider it more seriously than they seem to be doing.

I think male refugees should only be allowed to go as far as the next country. No expeditions to Europe.

Refugees should not be offered citizenship in 1st class western countries as their means of escape because it then becomes impossible to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant. The truth is probably that most arrivals have an element of both in their motivation. In order to determine who is a refugee and who is not a refugee the means of escape should offer safety from the immediate dangers of conflict and nothing more. No free tickets to permanent citizenship in the best countries in the world. No lottery jackpots. Just asylum from danger and nothing more. Then we will see who are the true refugees because only they will be motivated by this offer.

Canada already enacted a ban on single men.

Not quite, but they have enacted a preference for "families, women, children and sexual minorities at risk".

Sources:

http://www.cp24.com/news/single-men-not-shut-out-of-canada-s-refugee-effort-top-official-1.2675941

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/syrian-refugees-groups-canada_n_8657142.html

You are splitting hairs. I say potaytoes you say tomahtoes.

They effected a ban on single males by putting them at the end of a list which will not be reached. That is what they did and good on them for having some sense.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think they have an absolute obligation to fight but I think they should consider it more seriously than they seem to be doing.

So, they have an obligation to consider fighting more seriously. I don't see why (or how you know how seriously they considered it).
For example, in Syria, at least all sides with any chance of not getting killed quickly (or worse) seem to be seriously bad.
Moreover, even if that weren't the case, a single individual with no military training and either no weapons or an old AK47 and just a little ammo is very likely to get killed.
Other males are - for example - old, or in wheelchairs, etc., and are less capable of fighting than many females.

But more generally, why would males have an obligation to considering fighting more seriously than they are?

I think male refugees should only be allowed to go as far as the next country. No expeditions to Europe.

One of Syria's neighboring countries is Turkey, which is partly in Europe, but I think you don't have a problem with allowing them in Turkey so I'll leave that one aside.

So, that sounds like a moral "should" - though you don't specify.
Who should prevent them from going to Europe? European governments, and why?

Now, I do get the point about protecting the local population, but your rationale has some difficulties.

For example, old males who aren't affiliated with fundamentalist groups, etc., or males in wheelchairs, do not appear more likely to do violence than, say, male children, who will in nearly all cases become adult males.

Refugees should not be offered citizenship in 1st class western countries as their means of escape because it then becomes impossible to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant. The truth is probably that most arrivals have an element of both in their motivation. In order to determine who is a refugee and who is not a refugee the means of escape should offer safety from the immediate dangers of conflict and nothing more. No free tickets to permanent citizenship in the best countries in the world. No lottery jackpots. Just asylum from danger and nothing more. Then we will see who are the true refugees because only they will be motivated by this offer.

That's a reasonable concern, but it applies to females and children as much as to adult males.
In fact, some refugees - including adult males - might not be safe in neighboring countries, either, at least in some conflicts - or will not have enough food, etc.

You are splitting hairs. I say potaytoes you say tomahtoes.

I'm not. You're exaggerating.
It's not the same to give priority to females, children and sexual minorities (including adult gay males), but allow other adult males, and to ban adult males altogether.

They effected a ban on single males by putting them at the end of a list which will not be reached. That is what they did and good on them for having some sense.

First, single gay males have priority as well.

Second, have you read the links I posted?

I quote: "Single males will be coming as part of this population."

Here's another link:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1232919

From the link:

“Most of them (coming to Canada) are not single men. Most of them are family members, whereas Germany accepts everybody that comes to its borders," he added.

"Most" of them are not single men.

Third, their rationale was quite different from several of your points.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Some clarification and more details:

Refugees should not be offered citizenship in 1st class western countries as their means of escape because it then becomes impossible to determine who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant. The truth is probably that most arrivals have an element of both in their motivation. In order to determine who is a refugee and who is not a refugee the means of escape should offer safety from the immediate dangers of conflict and nothing more. No free tickets to permanent citizenship in the best countries in the world. No lottery jackpots. Just asylum from danger and nothing more. Then we will see who are the true refugees because only they will be motivated by this offer.

The offer you suggest will not motivate people who wouldn't be safer in neighboring countries (e.g., gay people, in many cases).

But that aside, and to clarify, when I said it's a reasonable concern, I was talking about distinguishing economic migrants from refugees. But females can be economic migrants too, and so can children (not very young ones, but 10, 11, 12 years old children, etc.).

Now, you said earlier:

The women do not cause problems and the children are children so deserve protection.

Females overall cause a lot fewer problems, but they cause some.
However, in any case, and given your proposal above - regarding only neighboring countries -, it's unclear why you would support a policy that allows any refugees in rich non-neighboring countries at all. After all, females can be economic migrants as well.

Moreover, you give different reasons for children and for females.

I would then ask:

1. Do adults (males or females) not deserve protection?
if not, why not?
2. Do you think children not cause problems?

Granted, if you only allow females and children, you will allow a lower percentage of males, so overall, probably they'll cause fewer problems. However, male children will in nearly all cases become adult males.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Some clarification and more details:


The offer you suggest will not motivate people who wouldn't be safer in neighboring countries (e.g., gay people, in many cases).

But that aside, and to clarify, when I said it's a reasonable concern, I was talking about distinguishing economic migrants from refugees. But females can be economic migrants too, and so can children (not very young ones, but 10, 11, 12 years old children, etc.).

Now, you said earlier:

The women do not cause problems and the children are children so deserve protection.

Females overall cause a lot fewer problems, but they cause some.
However, in any case, and given your proposal above - regarding only neighboring countries -, it's unclear why you would support a policy that allows any refugees in rich non-neighboring countries at all. After all, females can be economic migrants as well.

Moreover, you give different reasons for children and for females.

I would then ask:

1. Do adults (males or females) not deserve protection?
if not, why not?
2. Do you think children not cause problems?

Granted, if you only allow females and children, you will allow a lower percentage of males, so overall, probably they'll cause fewer problems. However, male children will in nearly all cases become adult males.

The elephant in the room is this would lead to the importation of single mothers (aside from single women). Thus this would cause more of a problem on the state with respect to welfare payments and child welfare services. Single mothers with more than one or two children would find it difficult to find a job and look after them. Europe should have stopped the whole problem of immigration at its source by reintroducing borders and security checks, to prevent economic migrants from entering.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It sounds like a sweatshop owner's dream. In the U.S. where women make 77 cents to a dollar a man would make....only let in the cheapest of commodities for the sweatshop industry. There are always obvious differences between people,,,men, woman, black, white, Harvard educated, drop out, etc etc. The fact is they are all HUMAN BEINGS IN TROUBLE. The refugee situation should not reflect a shopping for cheap labor opportunity for sweat shop owners.

Unfortunately it does as most are economic migrants. What little they get is (sometimes) more than they earned at home.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

r. Why should these men be required to fight for something they don't believe in? Now if you were talking about those specific people who voluntarily are engaging in the conflict, I could see keeping them out.

It's called being a Patriot and not a fucking pussy!

 

[bigfield]

I can hear a chickenhawk squawking again.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

I love all the various ways people come up with to try and couch their racism in expressions of how they're the good guys who are thinking of others by being racist.

Racist?? so what - or do you think other countries will just hand out free money and bennies- hell, I hear Costa Rica is nice, might head out there for a free ride - do they give that to white people or what?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I love all the various ways people come up with to try and couch their racism in expressions of how they're the good guys who are thinking of others by being racist.

Racist?? so what - or do you think other countries will just hand out free money and bennies- hell, I hear Costa Rica is nice, might head out there for a free ride - do they give that to white people or what?

Excellent illustration, BJ.

 

[Terrell]

r. Why should these men be required to fight for something they don't believe in? Now if you were talking about those specific people who voluntarily are engaging in the conflict, I could see keeping them out.

It's called being a Patriot and not a fucking pussy!

So if someone thinks that something is just not worth fighting for they're a pussy for not fighting for it? Shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions on what's worthwhile? Is there a rational argument in there anywhere or are insults the best you've got?

 

[Keith&Co.]

r. Why should these men be required to fight for something they don't believe in? Now if you were talking about those specific people who voluntarily are engaging in the conflict, I could see keeping them out.

It's called being a Patriot and not a fucking pussy!

I didn't know that 'patriotism' was the state of fighting for something you do not believe in. I thought 'patriotism' was kind of the opposite of that.

I don't think i'd like a military comprised of men who would join up just to avoid being called pussies. I suppose if the recruiter suggested they might be faggots, then they would volunteer for the special forces. And if the service is short of pilots, suggest that they have tiny dicks.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

So if someone thinks that something is just not worth fighting for they're a pussy for not fighting for it? Shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions on what's worthwhile? Is there a rational argument in there anywhere or are insults the best you've got?

Running away and deserting your country in its time of need shouldn't be an option - nope, those folk should be forced to stay put and try and help out in whatever way they can - just like how the patriots did in WW2 when trying to fight their enemies. Trouble is, the EU has gone into ubermensch mode, encouraging spinelessness in its never ending quest for cheap labour

 

[Bar-Jesus]

I don't think i'd like a military comprised of men who would join up just to avoid being called pussies. I suppose if the recruiter suggested they might be faggots, then they would volunteer for the special forces. And if the service is short of pilots, suggest that they have tiny dicks.

oh look, Keith's projecting again! No wonder you love all these refugee types, bet you're hoping for some big Arab stallion to shack up in your spare room - lol

 

[Terrell]

So if someone thinks that something is just not worth fighting for they're a pussy for not fighting for it? Shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions on what's worthwhile? Is there a rational argument in there anywhere or are insults the best you've got?

Running away and deserting your country in its time of need shouldn't be an option - nope, those folk should be forced to stay put and try and help out in whatever way they can - just like how the patriots did in WW2 when trying to fight their enemies. Trouble is, the EU has gone into ubermensch mode, encouraging spinelessness in its never ending quest for cheap labour

Why shouldn't it be an option? What justifies forcing someone to fight for a country they'd rather leave? Why do you support forcing people to provide services against their will? Why should being forced to fight for something you don't believe in be in any way morally superior to any other type of forced labor?