So was the UN global framework on migration through, just as I had expected. The text is not particularly controversial, but because it is about immigration have been beset by myths, misinformation, and anger.
A dozen countries have left the process, including the USA, Australia and in the last moment Chile. Defectors claim that they do not want to renounce sovereignty in the migration policy, something that would not be threatened by the agreement. But the combination of migrants, the united nations and the agreement was enough to excite the greatest suspicion. So charged is subject.
migrationsförespråkarna who had känsloargumenten and opponents who tried to respond with facts. One page talked about the open hearts, compassion for others, and no man is illegal, the other replied with a volume, brottskurvor and expenditure items. No wonder that the call hacked.
After the fall of 2015, the roles are swapped. Invandringskritikerna has tailwind, both in the united states that in large parts of Europe. Now it is those who speak a känslospråk: the Nation's identity is threatened, irreplaceable historic and cultural values are at stake, our security is shaded by a dark invandrarmoln on the horizon.
the answer, on the defensive and with a shaky voice, with figures: how much earn these countries to accept immigrants, so you can see the faltering of the demographics, so here small is rännilen of the world's refugees who come to Europe.
Still, it is, in other words, impossible for the two sides to understand each other. In particular, such as ”call” all the time, the author of the invective: a Fascist, brunsmetare, svärjevän, godhetsknarkare...
It is impossible to understand each other when ”the call” all the time, the author of the invective.
As is so often the solution lies somewhere in between. The migration issue is more than the vast majority of subjects, both heart and brain. Every nation has the right to put a price on immigration and decide if it is willing to pay it, but the migrants, in particular the refugee, but also represents something beyond the black and the red figures in the financial statements.
as is well illustrated by the debate on the UN framework. The refugee and migration issue must be resolved globally. At the same time, no third party to impose a country of migrants it does not want to receive – it is risking disaster for all involved, not least the migrants themselves.
Should the nuts be cracked, it must be done with a level-headed conversation, reasoned argument, facts. We must also dare to believe our opponents on the plenty. Whatever opinion we, ourselves, than advocating others have the right not to like who we are. Compromise is not only possible, but necessary. Not least in the issue of migration. Perhaps there especially.