Well since there seems to be a lot of bullshit flying around the forums thanks to some certain xenophobic twats (I won't give names here ) I figured it's time to give some factual evidence.
Myth #1: Most of the refugees are young healthy males.
I honestly don't know why this is a talking point, considering that, A) why does the gender matter since they are fleeing from a brutal war, and B) why does the fact they are healthy matter as their two main options to fight for, Assad and ISIS, are pretty damn shitty choices. But GOP Presidential candidate Ben Carson made the claim:
Carson, Sept. 14: I believe we should encourage the various countries in that region, you know, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, to take those refugees in. And we should be willing to perhaps help them financially and with some expertise. But the fact of the matter is, we don’t know who those people are. And the majority of them are young males. And they could easily be people who are being infiltrated by terrorists and recognize that once you bring them in, then you have got to bring other members of the family in.
So you’re multiplying that number substantially. We need — this is not something that we can necessarily afford to do in terms of exposing our population to that kind of risk right now.
Of course, while he is entitled to his opinions, it runs counter to the facts presented by the best data available on the Syrian refugees’ demographics. On Factcheck.org:
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — which refers refugees for resettlement in other countries — says there are more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees. Its figures on the demographic makeup of refugees is based on available data on the 2.1 million who were registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. (Another 1.9 million Syrian refugees were registered by the Government of Turkey, and more than 24,000 were registered in North Africa.)
UNHCR’s data show that 50.5 percent of refugees are women. Females age 18 to 59 make up 23.9 percent of the refugees, while males in that age group make up 21.8 percent.
Even younger males — age 12 to 17 — represent 6.5 percent of refugees, while females that age are 6.1 percent. The majority of refugees — 51.1 percent — are under age 17, including 38.5 percent who are younger than 12 years old. These numbers were as of Sept. 6.
So the idea that an overwhelming majority of these refugees are young healthy males who should have stayed to fight Assad and ISIS is quite frankly that, just an idea.
Myth #2: Most of the refugees are entering Europe, that it can't handle the amount of them.
Myth #3: no Muslim country is taking them in.
Pretty good talking point. But not true. And both of these myths can be debunked by this chart that Vox did based on data from UNHCR and the World Bank:Vox Chart on Refugees
Give credit where credit is due, the third myth is partially right: All of the Arab gulf states (Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia) have taken in zero refugee's, despite being some of the richest nations on earth because of their oil wealth. But the idea that ALL of the muslim countries are doing this is false, as we can see that Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are taking an overwhelming amount of the refugee's compared to the western world. And they are woefully incapable of doing that:
But showing refugees per capita helps demonstrate the size of the refugee burden that various countries are carrying — and for all the panicking in Western countries, they're actually carrying a very tiny refugee burden compared with Middle Eastern countries.
Nearly one out of 10 people in Jordan are refugees; the figure is nearly one out of four in Lebanon. These aren't all Syrians, but a significant percentage of them are; Lebanon had an unusual open borders policy for Syrians until January 2015.
While immigration is generally great for a country's economy in the long run, taking in truly massive numbers of refugees can be quite taxing, especially for a small, poorer country such as Lebanon. Here's how a 2013 World Bank review, based on a study of the Syrian war's effect on the Lebanese economy, describes the situation:
Electricity supplies average 18 hours per day, and much less in rural regions. Public water services are limited to three days per week at best. Overcrowded public schools and insufficient capacity at government clinics and hospitals that cater for the lower-income population, especially in rural areas, have been the subject of news stories and civil society activism for nearly a decade. The flow of refugees is stretching all of these sectors to the limit.
Europe, the US, Canada, and other western nations can easily handle these refugee's, and they might actually be economically beneficial to accept as many as they can reasonably can. Again on another Vox article:
Well, flying people in and giving them basic resettlement support would cost money. Not a lot of money, but some. But over time, it would quite possibly pay for itself. It's uncontroversial among economists that immigration generates economic growth, and even the most immigration-skeptical economists concede that some of those gains go to native-born workers, not just migrants.
High-quality studies that use "natural experiments" — cases where there was a big, unexpected spike in immigration — suggest that the absolute effect of immigration on native workers is neutral or positive. It's much easier to isolate the effect on native workers in those cases than it is by trying to statistically weed out other potential causes of changes in wages. The Mariel boatlift, when Cuba unexpectedly sent 125,000 people to Florida, did not hurt employment or wages among native workers in Miami at all. Ahuge spike in Russian immigration to Israel in the early 1990s appeared to give existing workers a nearly 9 percent raise.
And the positive economic effects of immigration extend beyond just wages. Increased immigration reduces the price of services provided by immigrants, such as gardening and housekeeping. There's some evidence that immigration even gets more women into the workforce by making it cheaper to hire people to watch after children and elderly relatives, and perform other homemaking tasks.
As economist Michael Clemens once told me, the effect of immigration on real wages for native workers is "definitely positive, without any doubt whatsoever." A recentevidence review by researcher David Roodman confirms this: While low-skilled immigration can make the existing low-skilled immigrant population worse off (though almost certainly not worse off than in their country of origin), Americans born here have very little to worry about, and a lot to gain.
But unfortunately, as it is clearly evident, humanity doesn't really see the economic benefits of open borders, as much as they see a fear of change. A lot of this right-wing populism anti-immigration rise stems from the fact that a lot of people in the Western World can't accept the changing demographics, and are actively fighting to keep the cultural status quo. To use another Vox article:
Here in the United States, for instance, studies have found that when Americans are shown headlines about the country becoming a majority-minority nation, that makes them more conservative on a host of issues, including those not related to migration. That has fueled Donald Trump's dizzying rise in popularity this year: As Dara Lind writes, the appeal of his anti-immigrant demagoguery is at root not about jobs or economics, but about fear.
One study found that white Americans are far more comfortable with the idea of immigrants who are like them — for instance, those who are white or Christian, or who come from a European country that feels culturally similar to the US — than with those who do not share their religion, ethnic origin, or cultural background.
In Europe, similar insecurities have driven the rise of anti-immigrant parties and policies. In the UK, where a recent poll found that an astonishing 67 percent of people thought the government should deploy the army to keep immigrants from crossing into the UK through the Channel Tunnel, the polling outfit YouGov concluded recently that "when we think of immigration as an issue, we link it to government failure, economic insecurity and Britain’s decline from greatness." UK Foreign Minister Philip Hammond claimed in August that migrants from Africa were a threat to Europe's "standard of living and social infrastructure."
On Thursday, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban defended his government's harsh treatment of refugees by explicitly calling them a threat to Europe's Christian identity. "We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim," he said. "Or is it not worrying that Europe’s Christian culture is already barely able to maintain its own set of Christian values?"
It is pretty damn frustrating that we are in the midst of a huge crisis, and all we are doing is telling the people who just want to survive to fuck off.