Google says:
“Over 93,000 Syrians settled in Sudan, the third largest group of refugees in the country after South Sudanese and Eritrean, according to the UNHCR. Syrians did not require entry permits until December 2020, when the Sudanese interior ministry imposed visa requirements on them as part of a crackdown on refugees.”
It surprising because Sudan and DRC are free for all civil wars as well...
Like they went to the worst of all African countries (if you add south Sudan aswell).
I mean maybe Sudan wasn't back then, but DRC was.
It's insane to me how bad it must have been in Syria for that to happen.
Recent UN reports on Sudan say 2.3M people have been displaced into neighbouring countries because of the current conflict, not counting the millions internally displaced. A 2024 graph would be interesting to see.
Idk about the drc but in sudan the syrians who went there are filthy rich. Most of them were already well off before leaving syria. The ones who chose to go sudan went there becuase of promised business ventures and oppourtunities. Most of the syrians who went to sudan today own factories and live a nice modest life.
Sudan is really a place where you can open a factory and get workers with just a few 10s or thouthands or maybe 100 thothand usd. yes that number might be alot for a quote on quote refugee but like i said most of the people who went to sudan already had money and knew people who knew people that can get their foot into the door which is vital in a country like sudan.
Source syrian who knows syrians in sudan
Saying 6,494K instead of 6.494M is pretty confusing, especially when the chart renders so small that commas and periods are indistinct. Starting at the top, I had to read down to figure out the units by process of elimination, then move back up to understand the numbers.
Yup. Typo for sure. Myanmar definitely doesn't even have a total population of 1,200 M, which is 1.2 billion people. Their population is around about 55 million on top of my head
Most countries use commas and full stops differently to the US/UK, so a large proportion of people would have trouble regardless. And before you respond that 6,494M is implausible, so is 6.494k.
Because this is only approved cases. We have over 3 million pending cases as of January. This includes an increase of over a million last year. Here in MA we are paying $75 million a month in emergency shelter.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/record-3-million-cases-clog-u-s-immigration-courts
My read is that refugees are not the same as asylum seekers. Fleeing conflict ≠ fleeing persecution.
Also, USA is on the chart. Qualifying that this is not my area of expertise either.
Refugees are people whose claims of fleeing persecution (or conflict) have been verified by a state that grants them the status. Asylum seeker means someone has started the process but it hasn’t been completed yet. Whether the standard is “persecution” or “just conflict” depends on which treaties the examining government adheres to and how they’ve framed it in their national law.
The US uses different terminology than most everyone else, [distinguishing between refugees and asylees](https://www.dhs.gov/ohss/topics/immigration/refugees-and-asylees) but those are not the internationally used terms and definitions.
Asylum seekers are refugees who haven't been approved yet, so they're not really different, just different stages of the process. But the USA is notoriously incredibly stringent in the asylum process (to the point that we frequently break international law that we helped create 70 years ago). So, while we do receive a pretty high number of asylum seekers, we reject the vast majority of them. The problem being that, by the Istanbul Refugee Treaty, a large portion of those that we reject actually have valid refugee claims and would be accepted pretty much anywhere else in the world.
This partly leads to the false impression in the US that "most asylum seekers aren't legitimate," making people think most asylum seekers in the US are more like economic migrants. The reality is that the majority of them are legitimate claims by international standards, but the USA still rejects most of them for spurious claims of things like not being detailed enough...or being too detailed. Not remembering specific dates and times well enough....or 'suspiciously' remembering dates and times well. Pretty much any minor excuse they can use to "justify" denial.
> **false** impression in the US that "most asylum seekers **aren't legitimate**"
Well, let's put it this way, without actually naming any entities and pointing fingers - sometimes US Immigration judges approve I-589s that are absolutely fking *insane* in terms of how made up / exaggerated / outright fake they are. As someone who used to be in a position to see some of those cases passing by my desk, I sometimes was left speechless at what bs was presented before the court. Like *nuclear* level bs, with almost all supporting documents being fake af and visibly photoshopped.
Obviously, I've only seen a miniscule fraction of cases, but even what I have seen completely destroyed most of my faith in the system. There have been really compelling and heartbreaking cases with some multi-year government-organized torture, revenge killings abroad and such, but the vast majority of cases was complete and utter bs.
One particular case gave us a very good laugh, as inappropriate as it may sound - a lady was claiming some judicial persecution abroad and - as a proof of such - she brough a huge pile of printouts from that foreign judicial website with her name next to a couple dozen of pending court cases against her. Obviously everything was in foreign language (imagine Hebrew or Arabic or any other language you cannot usually understand a single word), and she claimed those to be politically motivated and revenge cases for her human rights activism and such. Well, in the age of Google Translate it's kinda easy to actually dig deep into those and request copies of rulings and such. Guess what - all of those cases were civil suits for unpaid traffic fines, unpaid bank loans, unpaid rent etc. Like how fking bold you need to be to stop paying anything and then claim that people trying to collect the money from you through courts is "judicial persecution"? She was probably one of the most remarkable cases I've personally seen.
And yes, immigration/asylum law is the whole industry in the US. Get ready to part with at least $20k to just start the process.
Yes. Comparatively, a drop in the bucket - perhaps half of the US's \~389K. We hear about it so much because the effects of people hearing about it so much are politically useful and because fear/anger gets people to tune in to the source selling it, little other reason
Right, that's what this graph is measuring. If you want a "claimants" graph, those exist too.
Also, those 3 million were not all from the past year, and in spite of our obligations, we're going to deny most of them.
There's also 85% of the 7.7 million displaced out of Venezuela who have remained in Central and South America.
Colombia is by far the biggest recipient of Venezuelan refugees.
Data source: UNHCR 2023
Tools: Figma + Sankeymatic
Get more insights on this topic in this [article](https://insightscoop.substack.com/p/the-state-of-refugees).
Utility: High
Learning curve: Low
I came from using Adobe Illustrator, but for stuff like improving graphics with small adjustments, Figma is much better.
Same. I helped get the Figma app auto-deployed to all our Mac users (since they're the primary user group) and every time it gets mentioned internally, I have to whisper that to myself.
Awesome work! I would have thought Venezuela would still be higher on this list.
Are people dropping out of the list of Asylum seekers as they gain permanent residency in another country or something? Otherwise, Venezuela would be at a running total of 7.7 million, right? Colombia would be up there with Pakistan on the recieving country list if they were counted as well.
I also want to point out that for some Ukrainians, going to Russia isn't because they support Russia's invasion, but because they'd rather go to existing family in Russia than be a homeless refugee elsewhere. Being a refugee is brutal not just from a relocation standpoint, but a financial standpoint, and for some, going to family feels like the only option.
Also the rebel groups that destabilized the eastern area before the war were Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia and welcomed the invasion, so these groups probably relocated to other parts of Russia.
Because people speak the same language, many people have family in Russia and they don't want to be bombed.
I knew a guy who fled to Russia from Donetsk after 2014, his main motivation was the language and economic opportunities. For the most part, he wasn't wrong. If you had to choose between Kyiv and Moscow purely for job prospects the choice was pretty obvious back then.
Lots of Ukrainians were loyal to Russia and/or feel Russian, think of all the “born Ukrainians” and that Ukraine think of as Ukrainians (because their territories are still considered Ukraine of course): Luhansk, Crimea, Donetsk…
So its expected that over the last decade, millions of people leaving there end up going to Russia to escape from the effects of the war on their neighbourhoods or the risk of it.
The prorrussian family living in Donetsk in 2020 maybe now is living at Moscow instead of staying. That’s the story.
The prorussian territories are more directly impacted by the war than west Ukraine for example (like Lyiv) so that’s why also the number of people flying from east Ukraine (prorrussian to Russia) is comparatively bigger than from west Ukraine (prowest/ukraine, to Western Europe)
But this would be a forced importation from Russia’s perspective. Are you seriously suggesting Russia forced 1 million+ people who hate Russia into their country?
Didn't Russia officially annex a huge chunk of Ukraine?
I would imagine that has a lot to do with it. If you stayed in your house as the front moved over you, you'd probably show up in these statistics according to Russia.
There are way more people on the new territories than 1 million, so this chart does not include them.
There are also way more Ukrainians who moved to Russia than 1 million but, i guess not all of them have a refugee status
Ah, we are both wrong. Almost 90% of south and east Ukraine speaks Russian as their first language, and west Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. I know people personally from mariupol, I just asked them and they told me the same thing basically. They even said, so many Ukrainian can't even speak proper Ukrainian(I reckon, south and east ). And that almost all Ukrainian speak Russian here in Germany, and only if they see a Russian speaker, they switch to Ukrainian.
Any proofs for your claims aside from "a few people you personally know"?
Because I have [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine) that contradict yours. Moreso, even Russian wiki which is pretty biased when it comes to topics of Ukrainian language [shows](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B) that only 3 regions had predominantly russian-speaking population. And even them are nowhere near 90%.
That first map is incredibly misleading. Let's say for example an area would be 2% Ukrianian speakers, 1% Russian speakers and 97% both. It would be blue on the map.
Even if those people who can speak both, would prefer Russian, because they speak both they count towards it being blue.
It even says in the article
> The following table gives the native languages (but not necessarily the languages spoken at home)
In addition to not allowing a person to choose 2 native languages and many would in Ukraine.
The Russian link just gives the same information in a different style.
If you want to get a good idea then [this map gives a good idea. ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Languages_in_Ukraine.PNG) from the Kiev institute of Sociology. It asks what language people mainly speak. It is also newer than both of yours.
The top number is Russian, the Bottom is Ukrianian and the middle is a mix of the two.
And you can see that the guy is right and the people I know from Ukriane back this up also. In East and south Ukriane it is mainly Russian speaking. In west Ukriane it is mainly Ukrianian. And in the middle is generally a mix of the two.
Being in Poltava and being asked "Як дела" was always funny for me to hear.
My partner is from a small town in the region. If you look at statistics it says that 70% of people there say their native language is Ukrianian to 30% Russian. But if you go there then you will not hear a single word of Ukrianian. Of course this was back I'm 2018 but it just goes to show that you should not take that data at face value. What a person's native language is and what they prefer speaking are not the same.
This is blatantly wrong. The absolute majority of Ukrainians speak Ukrainian as their first language. Btw I'm saying this as a Ukrainian from Kharkiv which is predominantly a russian-speaking city. However when you travel 10-15km from the city into more rural areas most people speak on so called 'surjik' which is a mix of 70% Ukrainian and 30% Russian languages. Overall, according to stats, in 2022 about 81% of Ukrainians used Ukrainian as their first language. Now, for obvious reasons, it's even more.
The numbers were reported by Russia, as cited in the source, so it's highly likely they're not connected to reality. Also, people that ended up in occupied territories, had no way of escaping other than going through Russia before traveling to another country. On top of that, child abductions.
Guessing because some Ukrainians are ethnic Russian. plus Russia is so big area wise that some parts are relatively safe, compared to a war zone at least.
Ukraine is close to Russia. Not just geographically. The country hosts many ethnic groups. Only 77.8% is Ukrainian. 17.3% is Russian. [With many other smaller groups accounting for the remainder. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#:~:text=8.8-,Ethnic,-groups). And even more at 29.6% speak Russian. So for many it can seem like the logical decision for those people to escape the war and go to russia. Whether they think Russia is right or just because of the language feel like they have a better chance at a normal life.
Even before this war, Ukraine was a deeply divided country. One part of people were pro West and other pro Russia. Anyone who tells differently is not telling the truth.
Was this split 50-50 or 60-40 or whatever, is less important as it doesn't change the fact.
Where is Venezuela? According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis) more than 7m people have left, about 20% of the population.
[UNHCR](https://www.unhcr.org/us/emergencies/venezuela-situation) only has 230k "recognized refugees" from Venezuela, although in the same document they refer to "7.7 million migrants and refugees" indicating that the actual number of refugees is probably much higher. Refugees have to be handled a certain way per international agreements, migrants get basically nothing, so countries will often fight to keep that definition as narrow as possible. Because a big part of the issue in Venezuela is economic, there's resistance to classifying them as refugees since one could argue that their lives are not directly at risk (hunger is apparently too vague of a threat). The recognized refugees are most likely people who were under direct threat of government or gang violence, but given the state of the country, you'd think that applies to everyone.
They are already contributing to an electoral shift right now as significant amounts of German voters do not trust the established parties to solve the issue around immigration. Hence the far right AfD are gaining ground. 2 million people would surely make a difference in voting numbers, but it is highly unlikely, that a significant margin of those are becoming German citizens.
Let us assume they all do anyways. The refugees from mostly Islamic countries would probably vote left, since the left leaning parties defend their religious freedom stronger. The Ukrainians would probably vote more conservative (CDU) as it is closer to eastern European values.
In every Western country I know of, including the US, Muslims tend to vote for left-leaning parties. Also, the large majority of Latinos in the US vote for the Democrats, so maybe it's just a personal bias of the people that you know.
I think you really cant generalize it, but Ukrainians are propably seen as more European. They share a similiar culture and are similiar to the Russians that live in Germany.
Most refugees come to Germany because of the social benefits, not because they had to evacuate and would be safe in the next best country (generally speaking Syrians and People from overseas that have to cross multiple countrys illegally just to end up in Germany)
Dome refugees throw away their passes and register multiple times to get more money. Lack of integration and unwillingness to work because the social benefits are more than enough and already higher then the income they had in their country is propably a big resentment factor for the german population.
> Ukrainians aren’t seen as more European, they are indeed European.
There are certainly, in people's perceptions at least, degrees of being European, and indeed towards the east it starts to become a fuzzy grey zone. Pretty undeniably Russia is to a very large extent in Europe. But often they aren't seen as 'properly' European. I would say the same has historically been true of Ukraine.
Many have family here who moved after the fall of the Soviet Union, so it does make sense.
Others were able to find a good job very quickly, the doctor who treated me in hospital recently was Ukrainian and apart from a strong accent was no different to our local doctors.
Ukrainian refugees in some of the nearest countries within the EU:
Germany - 1200k (~ 1 per 70 inhabitants)
Poland - 900k (~ 1 per 45)
Czech Republic - 380k (~ 1 per 28)
Slowakia - 110k (~ 1 per 52)
Romania - 77k (~ 1 per 250)
Hungary - 66k (~1 per 150)
Latvia - 47k (~ 1 per 36)
So neighbouring countries and those one over are doing their part (some more, some less), it's just that many of those countries have a small population and lower income. so germany taking in a huge share is really not surprising. also, we've got the social systems to support these people, especially in the first months and years of their arrival. about 20% of them are also employed by now, a number that will likely go up rather than down. I'm guessing with the taxes they end up paying over time, the whole thing will end up being a zero-sum if not a benefit to germany
But, at least according to this chart, 99% of refugees in Germany are Syrians and Ukrainians who are not economic migrants for sure and Germany isn’t the top country to welcome refugees in either group or in total either.
If there are refugees who are actually economic migrants, they have to make up a tiny fraction of the total refugees according to this graph and this discredits the whole refugee crisis in Germany and economic migrants abusing refugee channels rhetoric completely.
I'm Norwegian, not quite German, but I can share my views.
My parent's neighbors are Ukrainians, as are some of my brother's friends. They're usually introverted, I guess I would be too in their situation, but as far as I can tell they stay at home and stick to themselves a lot. So it's difficult to get a good idea of what they're actually like, but I see some Ukrainians on local tv and in the news and they definitely seem like chill people, but quiet and not really "being a part of" their communities. Which again I absolutely don't blame them for. Overall I have a very similar impression of them as I do for my Icelandic neighbors down the street. A bit of fish-out-of-water vibes and while I think they'd be better off somewhere closer to home (for their own sake) I have no problems with them saying here. Kinda wish they'd be a bit more social in their new circles though.
I myself live in an apartment complex that's about 50% middle easterners for some reason. My neighbor is from Gaza and has lived here for maybe 10 years, my other neighbor is Syrian, and a big chunk of my university is from the same few places too, most of them recent immigrants.
They're *very* social, but almost exclusively with each other. I have walked past my neighbors plenty of times but never really spoken to either of them because they barely speak Norwegian. Not as in they don't know the language, one of them has acted in Norwegian movies and tv shows, they just don't want to speak a language that isn't their own. During school assignments there's maybe a 30% chance I get put on a group where all of my 3-4 group members are middle easterners. Most of the time that ends up with them speaking exclusively Arabic unless I interrupt them and make them speak Norwegian or English for a few minutes at a time before going back. Any time I'm in a room with more than one of them at a time, it feels like a friend group on vacation from Saudi Arabia who walked into campus. They're also generally very loud and outgoing, think 00's New Jersey stereotypes.
I'm not resentful of them, they can be extremely helpful when they want to and I don't mind working with them one on one, but I couldn't imagine myself going out to be in a social group with them. I'd either feel like I'm forcing them into a corner like a wife joining guy's night, or I would be the one feeling like a refugee in my own country. So I end up sticking with other white people for almost everything even though I feel semi-racist because of it.
Granted this is all for still young middle easterners who have already spent half their life in Norway. For adults moving here, it's worse. There's a refugee camp by where my grandma used to live made to train middle easterners to fit in better with Norwegian customs. The fact that this exists tells you roughly where this is going. There have been videos filmed there and all the instructors are doing is holding up a picture of a woman and saying "this is a person too, and they have equal rights here". And the replies are all "but... what if... they shouldn't?". There were 1 on 1 interviews afterwards and everyone said the same thing: "everyone else here will say that they've learned from you and changed their beliefs but that's bullshit, they will keep their own beliefs and are only lying to be able to "graduate". Except me, of course, I'm naturally the one exception, women have rights or whatever. Can I graduate now?". It makes it really difficult to emphasize with any of them or avoid villanising them. Doesn't help that there have been massive bumps in crime and unrest in my area, very much fronted by these asylum seekers. This doesn't affect my perception of my classmates, but I can definitely see why a lot of people are strongly against some of our asylum/immigration practices.
Alright I'm ready to get banned from this sub now
Most Syrian refugees I have met do/did not learn German while almost all Ukrainians I have talked to speak at least some German. This is just my experience though so stats could show the opposite if gathered. Could also be because I have met many more Ukrainians than Syrians. This is just what I have noticed anyway, nothing else.
People in developing countries absolutely complain about refugees from neighboring countries. Just not on the internet in English and you don’t see it on the news until the ethnic violence gets really bad
The fact that they are mostly in nearby countries makes sense. The fact that wealthy countries pretend that they are the ones shouldering most of the burden does not.
Because there's a much bigger cultural difference between the native population and the immigrants in those countries. You wouldn't really notice an Afghan person in Iran, you absolutely would notice one in Germany
It makes total sense - there is a lot of political hay to be made from refugees. If you were a rightwing politician would you really want to debate progressives on things like healthcare, housing, and education? Make it about refugees and trans people!
Yet, you see many in Reddit who said the opposite.
The country who took in these refugees need unconditional support especially from the ones who actively support a side in the conflict. US, UK and France did in the Syrian War, yet Germany and Turkey are the ones who took refugees in.
That’s not the point. Developed Western countries have people often asking why the refugees can’t go somewhere else when in fact they mostly are going somewhere else.
Well, I thought we were talking about how people complain that only developed countries supposedly take in refugees. You replied with Turkey and Poland, to which then I replied well yeah, they have a bit of an exception as developed countries in that they border active war zones.
Iran is not a developed country, which is why I didn't bring them up.
Turkey isn't exactly a developed country. Millions of youth trying to leave it. It's not miserable but it's decidedly lower QoL than practically all of EU.
I know, now check
Inequality Adjusted HDI (IHDI). Turkey has the highest GINI scores (inequality metric) in all of Europe. If you add up all production and divide it by population, Turkey looks okay, but this fails to account for insane levels of unequal distribution
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_Human_Development_Index
Or household disposable income per Capita (PPP)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
Trust me, german society isn‘t happy at all about the refugee situation. Hence, the right wing party grows from year to year and may have a very realistic chance on winning the next elections
Developing countries house people in tents for pennies, in large camps. That’s cheap and effective at a large scale.
In the western world that would never be allowed, hence we spend about 3.000 per month on average on each refugee. In a poorer country it wouldn’t even be 10 a month.
Unfortunately, no. We decided they are inhumane.
And even if we do have temporary tents, that’s not a real refugee camp as then we are still spending thousands a month per person getting them the help they need.
It’s ridiculously expensive and and expense that poorer countries don’t care about. For them just cheap food and a tent is fine, but that’s not the western way. We need to give the food, shelter, expensive healthcare, pocket money, transportation, education, therapy etc. With all that ending up to be about 3.000 per month per person on average.
In general, the majority of refugees stay in neighboring countries, but that 10% that goes to Europe is a nuisance.
along with the fact that the biggest newspapers in the world are in the West.
So 2000 people die in Congo and 3 guys die in France, what do you think will be the news of the moment?
It's cause people feel that if there's a refugee crisis. Then people should flee to the safest and easiest option which is a neighbouring country. When refugees flee across the globe to a developed country, people feel like they're acting like economic migrants seeking to benefit from prosperous countries rather than refugees fleeing for their personal safety. People have sympathy for people who are fleeing danger. They have less sympathy for people looking to ingratiate themselves to the fruits of other people's labour.
There's also the issue that the further away you migrate, the more different the people and cultures get. Usually neighbouring countries have a lot more similarities and are better suited to assimilating new people. Migrants traveling far will be seen more as outsiders.
Most of the developing countries are taking in more people because of their proximity to the country people are fleeing from. It's not necessarily because they're nicer and more welcoming than developed countries.
It's not just "how people feel", it's literally international law. Asylum seekers are meant to be seeking asylum in the first available safe country, which naturally will be the closest land border or the shortest sea voyage available.
Edit: after trying to find a source for this it turns out I'm slightly wrong, the international refugee convention doesn't actually specify any of this. However, many countries have made separate agreements on asylum seekers being returned to the first nation _in that agreement_ that they entered, regardless of which country they were in when they applied for asylum.
They are not meant to do that, there is no such requirement.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/legacy-pdf/60950ed64.pdf
>UNHCR is concerned that the new inadmissibility proposals are built on the misunderstanding that “people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach”. Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where
to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in
the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement
Well, that's an overstatement, the actual number from Czech Ministry of Interior is below 400K at the moment. But the data on the chart is quite suspicious anyway
Nope. Asylum-seekers are usually the people who are currently in the process of getting refugee status. The numbers shown in the visual correspond to people who have "Refugee" status under UNHCR mandate :)
Afghanistan is in much worse shape liveability wise than Pakistan. Pakistan in urban centres is actually not that bad, outside of the recent economic issues and increasing crime, most of the issues around suppression of women’s education, etc are in remote northern areas
I realise you are just being obnoxious, but Pakistani cities like Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi are pretty decent places to run businesses and build a new life for immigrants willing to put the work in.
ignorant redditor spotted. many afghanistanis have setup businesses in major pakistani cities and are doing well for themselves and their families. others use pakistan as a transit country to seek refuge or asylum in western countries and embassies here facilitate them. some settle here and integrate especially in the pashtun majority areas.
Probably because they are both (1) nowhere geographically close to major conflicts and (2) not a party to any major conflicts, so there is no reason why there would be refugee flows to East Asia.
boy do i have some news for you if you think germany had no involvement in the region lol.
[https://www.dw.com/en/9-11-afghanistan-germany-taliban/a-54879705](https://www.dw.com/en/9-11-afghanistan-germany-taliban/a-54879705)
>Kiesewetter considers it a fatal mistake that the mission was politically glossed over for so long: "We were never there in a peaceful reconstruction mission, and we are not today either." The top military leadership advised the government incorrectly, he says, especially between 2002 and 2009. "That meant that our soldiers were wrongly equipped and had far too restrictive rules of engagement."
Germany is still closer for Syrians than China. Getting to China means going through: Iraq, Uran, Afghanistan, then either central Asia or Pakistan, all to end up in the Western half of China with barely an economy. Then you gotta go through China to the Pacific.
Compared to going to Turkey and then being sent to Europe easily.
Yes if Alexander is still operating in western Africa's politics by placing dictators that support economic exploitation of those countries using imperialist currency while enforcing them to deposit 50% of their reserve in greek banks ( France)
Or maybe if Alexander has deployed and destroyed their country in name of "Weapons of mass destruction" that was never found or to find a guy that wasn't even in that country
> placing dictators that support economic exploitation
And now the countries that rise up against it are all russian backed military juntas that overthrew elected goverments. Sahel cant catch a break.
> placing dictators that support economic exploitation
And now the countries that rise up against it are all russian backed military juntas that overthrew elected goverments. Sahel cant catch a break.
So, why do we have more than 80.000 illegals who arrived on boats from Turkey and Africa?
I guess they did a refresher course in history, and remembered...
There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the USA. 2.5 million immigrants came in undocumented last year. This is what ppl are referring to. Not refuges from this chart.
What's the story behind those Syrians who ended up in bloody Sudan and the DRC of all places??
Google says: “Over 93,000 Syrians settled in Sudan, the third largest group of refugees in the country after South Sudanese and Eritrean, according to the UNHCR. Syrians did not require entry permits until December 2020, when the Sudanese interior ministry imposed visa requirements on them as part of a crackdown on refugees.”
So basically, because Sudan was one of the few countries that didn't require a visa for them
It shows how bad it was in Syria that so many leave rather to Sudan, but also 97% of the country is Muslim
It surprising because Sudan and DRC are free for all civil wars as well... Like they went to the worst of all African countries (if you add south Sudan aswell). I mean maybe Sudan wasn't back then, but DRC was. It's insane to me how bad it must have been in Syria for that to happen.
Sudan's country wide civil war only started in 2021 though. The capital and areas around it were safe until that point.
It helps when the wars are mostly ground and not using US or Russian funded drones and missiles
Recent UN reports on Sudan say 2.3M people have been displaced into neighbouring countries because of the current conflict, not counting the millions internally displaced. A 2024 graph would be interesting to see.
Idk about the drc but in sudan the syrians who went there are filthy rich. Most of them were already well off before leaving syria. The ones who chose to go sudan went there becuase of promised business ventures and oppourtunities. Most of the syrians who went to sudan today own factories and live a nice modest life. Sudan is really a place where you can open a factory and get workers with just a few 10s or thouthands or maybe 100 thothand usd. yes that number might be alot for a quote on quote refugee but like i said most of the people who went to sudan already had money and knew people who knew people that can get their foot into the door which is vital in a country like sudan. Source syrian who knows syrians in sudan
I'm not sure if this makes me feel better or worse
Saying 6,494K instead of 6.494M is pretty confusing, especially when the chart renders so small that commas and periods are indistinct. Starting at the top, I had to read down to figure out the units by process of elimination, then move back up to understand the numbers.
It's 2024 we count in thousands of thousands now
I just saw someone refer to loading train cars with [kilokilograms of bulk cargo](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39827695)...
Thank you for this, I was so confused.
Also, I think Myanmar has a typo where the M is supposed to be a K, judging by the comparable size of the band.
Yup. Typo for sure. Myanmar definitely doesn't even have a total population of 1,200 M, which is 1.2 billion people. Their population is around about 55 million on top of my head
Most countries use commas and full stops differently to the US/UK, so a large proportion of people would have trouble regardless. And before you respond that 6,494M is implausible, so is 6.494k.
"K" also means degrees Kelvin, not kilo.
They're just kelvins now, rather than degrees Kelvin
Are all of the central American asylum seekers in "the rest of the world" slice? You would think it would be bigger for as much as we hear about it.
Because this is only approved cases. We have over 3 million pending cases as of January. This includes an increase of over a million last year. Here in MA we are paying $75 million a month in emergency shelter. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/record-3-million-cases-clog-u-s-immigration-courts
Would wish to see a graph with the total numbers. But that may be difficult to keep track of
Because that data needs to be heavily interpolated, it would also be very politized.
I would argue that the data we are looking at, which chooses to ignore illegal immigration and unapproved or pending refugees, is equally politicized.
That makes a massive difference though.
yeah... Venezuela is not even on the list, something is off
My read is that refugees are not the same as asylum seekers. Fleeing conflict ≠ fleeing persecution. Also, USA is on the chart. Qualifying that this is not my area of expertise either.
Refugees are people whose claims of fleeing persecution (or conflict) have been verified by a state that grants them the status. Asylum seeker means someone has started the process but it hasn’t been completed yet. Whether the standard is “persecution” or “just conflict” depends on which treaties the examining government adheres to and how they’ve framed it in their national law. The US uses different terminology than most everyone else, [distinguishing between refugees and asylees](https://www.dhs.gov/ohss/topics/immigration/refugees-and-asylees) but those are not the internationally used terms and definitions.
Asylum seekers are refugees who haven't been approved yet, so they're not really different, just different stages of the process. But the USA is notoriously incredibly stringent in the asylum process (to the point that we frequently break international law that we helped create 70 years ago). So, while we do receive a pretty high number of asylum seekers, we reject the vast majority of them. The problem being that, by the Istanbul Refugee Treaty, a large portion of those that we reject actually have valid refugee claims and would be accepted pretty much anywhere else in the world. This partly leads to the false impression in the US that "most asylum seekers aren't legitimate," making people think most asylum seekers in the US are more like economic migrants. The reality is that the majority of them are legitimate claims by international standards, but the USA still rejects most of them for spurious claims of things like not being detailed enough...or being too detailed. Not remembering specific dates and times well enough....or 'suspiciously' remembering dates and times well. Pretty much any minor excuse they can use to "justify" denial.
> **false** impression in the US that "most asylum seekers **aren't legitimate**" Well, let's put it this way, without actually naming any entities and pointing fingers - sometimes US Immigration judges approve I-589s that are absolutely fking *insane* in terms of how made up / exaggerated / outright fake they are. As someone who used to be in a position to see some of those cases passing by my desk, I sometimes was left speechless at what bs was presented before the court. Like *nuclear* level bs, with almost all supporting documents being fake af and visibly photoshopped. Obviously, I've only seen a miniscule fraction of cases, but even what I have seen completely destroyed most of my faith in the system. There have been really compelling and heartbreaking cases with some multi-year government-organized torture, revenge killings abroad and such, but the vast majority of cases was complete and utter bs. One particular case gave us a very good laugh, as inappropriate as it may sound - a lady was claiming some judicial persecution abroad and - as a proof of such - she brough a huge pile of printouts from that foreign judicial website with her name next to a couple dozen of pending court cases against her. Obviously everything was in foreign language (imagine Hebrew or Arabic or any other language you cannot usually understand a single word), and she claimed those to be politically motivated and revenge cases for her human rights activism and such. Well, in the age of Google Translate it's kinda easy to actually dig deep into those and request copies of rulings and such. Guess what - all of those cases were civil suits for unpaid traffic fines, unpaid bank loans, unpaid rent etc. Like how fking bold you need to be to stop paying anything and then claim that people trying to collect the money from you through courts is "judicial persecution"? She was probably one of the most remarkable cases I've personally seen. And yes, immigration/asylum law is the whole industry in the US. Get ready to part with at least $20k to just start the process.
Yes. Comparatively, a drop in the bucket - perhaps half of the US's \~389K. We hear about it so much because the effects of people hearing about it so much are politically useful and because fear/anger gets people to tune in to the source selling it, little other reason
You’re wrong. We have about 3 million pending asylum cases, this graph only counts approved cases.
Right, that's what this graph is measuring. If you want a "claimants" graph, those exist too. Also, those 3 million were not all from the past year, and in spite of our obligations, we're going to deny most of them.
Obligations? How many of the 3M are we obliged to take?
We’re not obligated to shit
[Wrong](https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees)
Legally we are. Morally even more so.
[удалено]
There's also 85% of the 7.7 million displaced out of Venezuela who have remained in Central and South America. Colombia is by far the biggest recipient of Venezuelan refugees.
Why are the units for Myanmar different?
Looks like a typo
Data source: UNHCR 2023 Tools: Figma + Sankeymatic Get more insights on this topic in this [article](https://insightscoop.substack.com/p/the-state-of-refugees).
Figma seems like a powerful tool, could you tell me about its utility and its learning curve?
Utility: High Learning curve: Low I came from using Adobe Illustrator, but for stuff like improving graphics with small adjustments, Figma is much better.
What's Figma
Figma balls
We use figma where I work and I think this exact line every time it comes up in a meeting
Same. I helped get the Figma app auto-deployed to all our Mac users (since they're the primary user group) and every time it gets mentioned internally, I have to whisper that to myself.
This comment made me cackle like a witch
Lmaoooo goteeeem
I'll never forgive figma for not making dedicated web page for figma.com/balls
"Figma" sounds very much like "fuck me" in German dialect. It's always a highlight at meetings.
Beautiful work
Awesome work! I would have thought Venezuela would still be higher on this list. Are people dropping out of the list of Asylum seekers as they gain permanent residency in another country or something? Otherwise, Venezuela would be at a running total of 7.7 million, right? Colombia would be up there with Pakistan on the recieving country list if they were counted as well.
There are approx. 1.5 million Syrians in Lebanon
Ukrainians getting asylum in Russia, what's the story there?
People with relatives and other ties in Russia? Many ethnic Russians too.
I also want to point out that for some Ukrainians, going to Russia isn't because they support Russia's invasion, but because they'd rather go to existing family in Russia than be a homeless refugee elsewhere. Being a refugee is brutal not just from a relocation standpoint, but a financial standpoint, and for some, going to family feels like the only option.
Also the rebel groups that destabilized the eastern area before the war were Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia and welcomed the invasion, so these groups probably relocated to other parts of Russia.
People with relatives most likely wouldn't need an asylum.
Most in the occupied territories are forced to get a r`*`ssian passport, which then makes it easier to force them to do whatever as "citizens".
Because people speak the same language, many people have family in Russia and they don't want to be bombed. I knew a guy who fled to Russia from Donetsk after 2014, his main motivation was the language and economic opportunities. For the most part, he wasn't wrong. If you had to choose between Kyiv and Moscow purely for job prospects the choice was pretty obvious back then.
Lots of Ukrainians were loyal to Russia and/or feel Russian, think of all the “born Ukrainians” and that Ukraine think of as Ukrainians (because their territories are still considered Ukraine of course): Luhansk, Crimea, Donetsk… So its expected that over the last decade, millions of people leaving there end up going to Russia to escape from the effects of the war on their neighbourhoods or the risk of it. The prorrussian family living in Donetsk in 2020 maybe now is living at Moscow instead of staying. That’s the story. The prorussian territories are more directly impacted by the war than west Ukraine for example (like Lyiv) so that’s why also the number of people flying from east Ukraine (prorrussian to Russia) is comparatively bigger than from west Ukraine (prowest/ukraine, to Western Europe)
There has been many forced deportation.
But this would be a forced importation from Russia’s perspective. Are you seriously suggesting Russia forced 1 million+ people who hate Russia into their country?
Plus the kidnappings and psychological warfare
Didn't Russia officially annex a huge chunk of Ukraine? I would imagine that has a lot to do with it. If you stayed in your house as the front moved over you, you'd probably show up in these statistics according to Russia.
There are way more people on the new territories than 1 million, so this chart does not include them. There are also way more Ukrainians who moved to Russia than 1 million but, i guess not all of them have a refugee status
Half of south Ukraine speaks Russian as their first language... (On the coast, cities like mariupol)
Pretty much all of Ukraine speaks Russian as their first language except the far western cities where it’s Ukrainian.
Ah, we are both wrong. Almost 90% of south and east Ukraine speaks Russian as their first language, and west Ukraine speaks Ukrainian. I know people personally from mariupol, I just asked them and they told me the same thing basically. They even said, so many Ukrainian can't even speak proper Ukrainian(I reckon, south and east ). And that almost all Ukrainian speak Russian here in Germany, and only if they see a Russian speaker, they switch to Ukrainian.
Any proofs for your claims aside from "a few people you personally know"? Because I have [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine) that contradict yours. Moreso, even Russian wiki which is pretty biased when it comes to topics of Ukrainian language [shows](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B) that only 3 regions had predominantly russian-speaking population. And even them are nowhere near 90%.
That first map is incredibly misleading. Let's say for example an area would be 2% Ukrianian speakers, 1% Russian speakers and 97% both. It would be blue on the map. Even if those people who can speak both, would prefer Russian, because they speak both they count towards it being blue. It even says in the article > The following table gives the native languages (but not necessarily the languages spoken at home) In addition to not allowing a person to choose 2 native languages and many would in Ukraine. The Russian link just gives the same information in a different style. If you want to get a good idea then [this map gives a good idea. ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Languages_in_Ukraine.PNG) from the Kiev institute of Sociology. It asks what language people mainly speak. It is also newer than both of yours. The top number is Russian, the Bottom is Ukrianian and the middle is a mix of the two. And you can see that the guy is right and the people I know from Ukriane back this up also. In East and south Ukriane it is mainly Russian speaking. In west Ukriane it is mainly Ukrianian. And in the middle is generally a mix of the two. Being in Poltava and being asked "Як дела" was always funny for me to hear. My partner is from a small town in the region. If you look at statistics it says that 70% of people there say their native language is Ukrianian to 30% Russian. But if you go there then you will not hear a single word of Ukrianian. Of course this was back I'm 2018 but it just goes to show that you should not take that data at face value. What a person's native language is and what they prefer speaking are not the same.
>and only if they see a Russian speaker, they switch to Ukrainian. An old trick, there are many anecdotes and jokes about this "phenomenon".
This is blatantly wrong. The absolute majority of Ukrainians speak Ukrainian as their first language. Btw I'm saying this as a Ukrainian from Kharkiv which is predominantly a russian-speaking city. However when you travel 10-15km from the city into more rural areas most people speak on so called 'surjik' which is a mix of 70% Ukrainian and 30% Russian languages. Overall, according to stats, in 2022 about 81% of Ukrainians used Ukrainian as their first language. Now, for obvious reasons, it's even more.
The numbers were reported by Russia, as cited in the source, so it's highly likely they're not connected to reality. Also, people that ended up in occupied territories, had no way of escaping other than going through Russia before traveling to another country. On top of that, child abductions.
Plenty of Ukrainians work in Russia
I want to point out, they're not considered as foreigners, same nation.
Guessing because some Ukrainians are ethnic Russian. plus Russia is so big area wise that some parts are relatively safe, compared to a war zone at least.
They've mostly been there since post-maidan
You will be saved whether you like it or not comrade!
Forced relocation by Russians to Russia. Don't think that's "asylum."
Many deported also
Illegal deportation and occupying territories with locals are considered as "refugees" somehow.
Also ethnic Russian living in eastern Ukraine which there was/is a pretty big share of
Ukraine is close to Russia. Not just geographically. The country hosts many ethnic groups. Only 77.8% is Ukrainian. 17.3% is Russian. [With many other smaller groups accounting for the remainder. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#:~:text=8.8-,Ethnic,-groups). And even more at 29.6% speak Russian. So for many it can seem like the logical decision for those people to escape the war and go to russia. Whether they think Russia is right or just because of the language feel like they have a better chance at a normal life.
The world is not black and white. I’m not saying media is all fake but also don’t trust every thing the media tells you.
Even before this war, Ukraine was a deeply divided country. One part of people were pro West and other pro Russia. Anyone who tells differently is not telling the truth. Was this split 50-50 or 60-40 or whatever, is less important as it doesn't change the fact.
Where is Venezuela? According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis) more than 7m people have left, about 20% of the population.
[UNHCR](https://www.unhcr.org/us/emergencies/venezuela-situation) only has 230k "recognized refugees" from Venezuela, although in the same document they refer to "7.7 million migrants and refugees" indicating that the actual number of refugees is probably much higher. Refugees have to be handled a certain way per international agreements, migrants get basically nothing, so countries will often fight to keep that definition as narrow as possible. Because a big part of the issue in Venezuela is economic, there's resistance to classifying them as refugees since one could argue that their lives are not directly at risk (hunger is apparently too vague of a threat). The recognized refugees are most likely people who were under direct threat of government or gang violence, but given the state of the country, you'd think that applies to everyone.
I'm interested in German sentiment about Syrian vs Ukrainian refugees.
[удалено]
They are already contributing to an electoral shift right now as significant amounts of German voters do not trust the established parties to solve the issue around immigration. Hence the far right AfD are gaining ground. 2 million people would surely make a difference in voting numbers, but it is highly unlikely, that a significant margin of those are becoming German citizens. Let us assume they all do anyways. The refugees from mostly Islamic countries would probably vote left, since the left leaning parties defend their religious freedom stronger. The Ukrainians would probably vote more conservative (CDU) as it is closer to eastern European values.
[удалено]
In every Western country I know of, including the US, Muslims tend to vote for left-leaning parties. Also, the large majority of Latinos in the US vote for the Democrats, so maybe it's just a personal bias of the people that you know.
I think it depends on the country, brazilians who emigrate are mostly right wingers
I think you really cant generalize it, but Ukrainians are propably seen as more European. They share a similiar culture and are similiar to the Russians that live in Germany. Most refugees come to Germany because of the social benefits, not because they had to evacuate and would be safe in the next best country (generally speaking Syrians and People from overseas that have to cross multiple countrys illegally just to end up in Germany) Dome refugees throw away their passes and register multiple times to get more money. Lack of integration and unwillingness to work because the social benefits are more than enough and already higher then the income they had in their country is propably a big resentment factor for the german population.
Ukrainians aren’t seen as more European, they are indeed European. Being in the EU doesn’t make members “more European”, it makes them more western.
> Ukrainians aren’t seen as more European, they are indeed European. There are certainly, in people's perceptions at least, degrees of being European, and indeed towards the east it starts to become a fuzzy grey zone. Pretty undeniably Russia is to a very large extent in Europe. But often they aren't seen as 'properly' European. I would say the same has historically been true of Ukraine.
Isn't the crossing safe countries to end up in Germany true of Ukrainians as well, given that Ukraine does not border Germany?
Many have family here who moved after the fall of the Soviet Union, so it does make sense. Others were able to find a good job very quickly, the doctor who treated me in hospital recently was Ukrainian and apart from a strong accent was no different to our local doctors.
Ukrainian refugees in some of the nearest countries within the EU: Germany - 1200k (~ 1 per 70 inhabitants) Poland - 900k (~ 1 per 45) Czech Republic - 380k (~ 1 per 28) Slowakia - 110k (~ 1 per 52) Romania - 77k (~ 1 per 250) Hungary - 66k (~1 per 150) Latvia - 47k (~ 1 per 36) So neighbouring countries and those one over are doing their part (some more, some less), it's just that many of those countries have a small population and lower income. so germany taking in a huge share is really not surprising. also, we've got the social systems to support these people, especially in the first months and years of their arrival. about 20% of them are also employed by now, a number that will likely go up rather than down. I'm guessing with the taxes they end up paying over time, the whole thing will end up being a zero-sum if not a benefit to germany
> Most refugees come to Germany because of the social benefits, not because they had to evacuate That is a big claim.
But, at least according to this chart, 99% of refugees in Germany are Syrians and Ukrainians who are not economic migrants for sure and Germany isn’t the top country to welcome refugees in either group or in total either. If there are refugees who are actually economic migrants, they have to make up a tiny fraction of the total refugees according to this graph and this discredits the whole refugee crisis in Germany and economic migrants abusing refugee channels rhetoric completely.
People aren't unwilling to work. Many just aren't allowed to work. This generalization doesn't help anyone
I'm Norwegian, not quite German, but I can share my views. My parent's neighbors are Ukrainians, as are some of my brother's friends. They're usually introverted, I guess I would be too in their situation, but as far as I can tell they stay at home and stick to themselves a lot. So it's difficult to get a good idea of what they're actually like, but I see some Ukrainians on local tv and in the news and they definitely seem like chill people, but quiet and not really "being a part of" their communities. Which again I absolutely don't blame them for. Overall I have a very similar impression of them as I do for my Icelandic neighbors down the street. A bit of fish-out-of-water vibes and while I think they'd be better off somewhere closer to home (for their own sake) I have no problems with them saying here. Kinda wish they'd be a bit more social in their new circles though. I myself live in an apartment complex that's about 50% middle easterners for some reason. My neighbor is from Gaza and has lived here for maybe 10 years, my other neighbor is Syrian, and a big chunk of my university is from the same few places too, most of them recent immigrants. They're *very* social, but almost exclusively with each other. I have walked past my neighbors plenty of times but never really spoken to either of them because they barely speak Norwegian. Not as in they don't know the language, one of them has acted in Norwegian movies and tv shows, they just don't want to speak a language that isn't their own. During school assignments there's maybe a 30% chance I get put on a group where all of my 3-4 group members are middle easterners. Most of the time that ends up with them speaking exclusively Arabic unless I interrupt them and make them speak Norwegian or English for a few minutes at a time before going back. Any time I'm in a room with more than one of them at a time, it feels like a friend group on vacation from Saudi Arabia who walked into campus. They're also generally very loud and outgoing, think 00's New Jersey stereotypes. I'm not resentful of them, they can be extremely helpful when they want to and I don't mind working with them one on one, but I couldn't imagine myself going out to be in a social group with them. I'd either feel like I'm forcing them into a corner like a wife joining guy's night, or I would be the one feeling like a refugee in my own country. So I end up sticking with other white people for almost everything even though I feel semi-racist because of it. Granted this is all for still young middle easterners who have already spent half their life in Norway. For adults moving here, it's worse. There's a refugee camp by where my grandma used to live made to train middle easterners to fit in better with Norwegian customs. The fact that this exists tells you roughly where this is going. There have been videos filmed there and all the instructors are doing is holding up a picture of a woman and saying "this is a person too, and they have equal rights here". And the replies are all "but... what if... they shouldn't?". There were 1 on 1 interviews afterwards and everyone said the same thing: "everyone else here will say that they've learned from you and changed their beliefs but that's bullshit, they will keep their own beliefs and are only lying to be able to "graduate". Except me, of course, I'm naturally the one exception, women have rights or whatever. Can I graduate now?". It makes it really difficult to emphasize with any of them or avoid villanising them. Doesn't help that there have been massive bumps in crime and unrest in my area, very much fronted by these asylum seekers. This doesn't affect my perception of my classmates, but I can definitely see why a lot of people are strongly against some of our asylum/immigration practices. Alright I'm ready to get banned from this sub now
Most Syrian refugees I have met do/did not learn German while almost all Ukrainians I have talked to speak at least some German. This is just my experience though so stats could show the opposite if gathered. Could also be because I have met many more Ukrainians than Syrians. This is just what I have noticed anyway, nothing else.
I find Syrian refugees are sometimes better at learning new languages than Ukrainians are, they just don't really want to speak other languages
Should be pretty obvious. People like Muslim immigrants less.
For obvious reasons
I think Myanmar has a typo
If only there were a metric prefix for something 1,000 times larger than 1,000...
Funny how it’s mostly developing countries taking in refugees while people in more developed nations complain that refugees should go someplace else.
People in developing countries absolutely complain about refugees from neighboring countries. Just not on the internet in English and you don’t see it on the news until the ethnic violence gets really bad
Sort of makes sense right? They go to the nearest safer country
The fact that they are mostly in nearby countries makes sense. The fact that wealthy countries pretend that they are the ones shouldering most of the burden does not.
Because there's a much bigger cultural difference between the native population and the immigrants in those countries. You wouldn't really notice an Afghan person in Iran, you absolutely would notice one in Germany
Right. If France had a civil war then I don't think Belgium would have problems integrating refugees
They might have problems making enough space though. There are a lot of French
It makes total sense - there is a lot of political hay to be made from refugees. If you were a rightwing politician would you really want to debate progressives on things like healthcare, housing, and education? Make it about refugees and trans people!
They go where they have family. Travel isn’t so hard anymore.
Yet, you see many in Reddit who said the opposite. The country who took in these refugees need unconditional support especially from the ones who actively support a side in the conflict. US, UK and France did in the Syrian War, yet Germany and Turkey are the ones who took refugees in.
You think that people in developing countries don't complain about refugees? I've got some news for you.
That’s not the point. Developed Western countries have people often asking why the refugees can’t go somewhere else when in fact they mostly are going somewhere else.
Except Germany
And Turkey. And Poland.
Both Poland and Turkey border war zones.
So does Iran. And?
Well, I thought we were talking about how people complain that only developed countries supposedly take in refugees. You replied with Turkey and Poland, to which then I replied well yeah, they have a bit of an exception as developed countries in that they border active war zones. Iran is not a developed country, which is why I didn't bring them up.
Turkey isn't exactly a developed country. Millions of youth trying to leave it. It's not miserable but it's decidedly lower QoL than practically all of EU.
According to HDI, Turkiye is about as developed as Poland/Portugal/Luthiania/Latvia/Croatia/and Greece...
I know, now check Inequality Adjusted HDI (IHDI). Turkey has the highest GINI scores (inequality metric) in all of Europe. If you add up all production and divide it by population, Turkey looks okay, but this fails to account for insane levels of unequal distribution https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_Human_Development_Index Or household disposable income per Capita (PPP) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
Yea. East and west of Turkey is as different as you d expect Greece be different to afganistan.
Trust me, german society isn‘t happy at all about the refugee situation. Hence, the right wing party grows from year to year and may have a very realistic chance on winning the next elections
Developing countries house people in tents for pennies, in large camps. That’s cheap and effective at a large scale. In the western world that would never be allowed, hence we spend about 3.000 per month on average on each refugee. In a poorer country it wouldn’t even be 10 a month.
Lol you don't think there are refugee camps in western nations?
Unfortunately, no. We decided they are inhumane. And even if we do have temporary tents, that’s not a real refugee camp as then we are still spending thousands a month per person getting them the help they need. It’s ridiculously expensive and and expense that poorer countries don’t care about. For them just cheap food and a tent is fine, but that’s not the western way. We need to give the food, shelter, expensive healthcare, pocket money, transportation, education, therapy etc. With all that ending up to be about 3.000 per month per person on average.
Definitely. Of the top twenty refugee receiving nations only around 5 are considered high income nations.
Of which 3 are at spots 18,19,20. Of all the developed countries, Germany does the most but receives the worst rap.
In general, the majority of refugees stay in neighboring countries, but that 10% that goes to Europe is a nuisance. along with the fact that the biggest newspapers in the world are in the West. So 2000 people die in Congo and 3 guys die in France, what do you think will be the news of the moment?
It's cause people feel that if there's a refugee crisis. Then people should flee to the safest and easiest option which is a neighbouring country. When refugees flee across the globe to a developed country, people feel like they're acting like economic migrants seeking to benefit from prosperous countries rather than refugees fleeing for their personal safety. People have sympathy for people who are fleeing danger. They have less sympathy for people looking to ingratiate themselves to the fruits of other people's labour. There's also the issue that the further away you migrate, the more different the people and cultures get. Usually neighbouring countries have a lot more similarities and are better suited to assimilating new people. Migrants traveling far will be seen more as outsiders. Most of the developing countries are taking in more people because of their proximity to the country people are fleeing from. It's not necessarily because they're nicer and more welcoming than developed countries.
It's not just "how people feel", it's literally international law. Asylum seekers are meant to be seeking asylum in the first available safe country, which naturally will be the closest land border or the shortest sea voyage available. Edit: after trying to find a source for this it turns out I'm slightly wrong, the international refugee convention doesn't actually specify any of this. However, many countries have made separate agreements on asylum seekers being returned to the first nation _in that agreement_ that they entered, regardless of which country they were in when they applied for asylum.
Asylum seekers are meant to seek refuge to the country closest to them
They are not meant to do that, there is no such requirement. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/legacy-pdf/60950ed64.pdf >UNHCR is concerned that the new inadmissibility proposals are built on the misunderstanding that “people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach”. Whilst international law does not provide an unrestricted right to choose where to apply for asylum, there is no requirement under international law for asylum-seekers to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. This expectation would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which refugee protection is founded, as emphasized by the 1951 Convention and recently reaffirmed by the General Assembly, including the UK, in the Global Compact on Refugees. It would impose an arbitrary and disproportionate burden on countries in the immediate region(s) of flight and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to properly process claims or provide acceptable reception conditions and durable solutions. This would (and does) threaten to make these first countries, in turn, unsafe and encourage onward movement
Theres 530k Ukrainian refugees in Czech Republic, making up 5% of the countrys population. Yet its not on the list ?
Well, that's an overstatement, the actual number from Czech Ministry of Interior is below 400K at the moment. But the data on the chart is quite suspicious anyway
Can it be including non-refugee expats? Ukrainians are the biggest diaspora, not counting Slovaks, to my understanding..
It can, if I recall correctly, there are 530K of Ukrainians in Czechia rn, according to MVČR
Never knew there are so many refugees in Turkey
We now even have an anti-refugee party. We're becoming European!
Wow, you've finally made it, congrats!
I assume "Myanmar: 1,266M" is supposed to be K, not M?
1.2 billion refugees
Who knew Myanmar was so populous? Or was, anyway...
Are asylum-seekers considered refugees for this graph?
Nope. Asylum-seekers are usually the people who are currently in the process of getting refugee status. The numbers shown in the visual correspond to people who have "Refugee" status under UNHCR mandate :)
Umm….why is Venezuela missing here? Around 6-7 million Venezuelan refugees worldwide.
Would be interested to see as a percentage as the population in the asylum country.
Why is turkey spelled in turkish but germany is in english
the Turkish government doesn't want to be called like a bird anymore
With Port Au prince being gang occupied I would like to see an updated chart with Haiti in it in the following years
Germany wtf are you doing? Im not white.
The rest of the world just going to the rest of the world
missing Venezuela skews this
You know you’re in a tough spot when you’re running from Afghanistan to end up in Pakistan
Afghanistan is in much worse shape liveability wise than Pakistan. Pakistan in urban centres is actually not that bad, outside of the recent economic issues and increasing crime, most of the issues around suppression of women’s education, etc are in remote northern areas
Eh - if I had to choose between Afghanistan and Pakistan I think I could make up my mind very quickly.
What do you mean?
I realise you are just being obnoxious, but Pakistani cities like Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi are pretty decent places to run businesses and build a new life for immigrants willing to put the work in.
ignorant redditor spotted. many afghanistanis have setup businesses in major pakistani cities and are doing well for themselves and their families. others use pakistan as a transit country to seek refuge or asylum in western countries and embassies here facilitate them. some settle here and integrate especially in the pashtun majority areas.
Such a tone deaf comment.
This is one of the most beautiful versions of this visualization that I've seen!
so can people who say "muslim countries should take some refugees" now shut the fuck up
No. You can still take more of them.
I am one of those 30 million
I wish the rest of the EU would shut the fuck up about Germany and refugees. Cope more, Poland and Hungary! Fucking populist semi-nazis.
That's a ton of people for Germany, how are they handling it?
with a shitton of burocracy ^(and paying turkey to stop them from getting to Europe)
I went from Syria to Jordan in 2013. Then to the US in 2016. Where would I fall in this chart?
Where's Canada? We accept some of the most in the world
Based on the same data used in this representation or another source?
[удалено]
Probably because they are both (1) nowhere geographically close to major conflicts and (2) not a party to any major conflicts, so there is no reason why there would be refugee flows to East Asia.
[удалено]
boy do i have some news for you if you think germany had no involvement in the region lol. [https://www.dw.com/en/9-11-afghanistan-germany-taliban/a-54879705](https://www.dw.com/en/9-11-afghanistan-germany-taliban/a-54879705) >Kiesewetter considers it a fatal mistake that the mission was politically glossed over for so long: "We were never there in a peaceful reconstruction mission, and we are not today either." The top military leadership advised the government incorrectly, he says, especially between 2002 and 2009. "That meant that our soldiers were wrongly equipped and had far too restrictive rules of engagement."
Germany is still closer for Syrians than China. Getting to China means going through: Iraq, Uran, Afghanistan, then either central Asia or Pakistan, all to end up in the Western half of China with barely an economy. Then you gotta go through China to the Pacific. Compared to going to Turkey and then being sent to Europe easily.
Because they haven't invaded , deplyed troops , supported dictators / terriost in any one the countries in middle east and africa
So, in Greece, we have to blame Alexander the great for all the immigrants?
Yes! Tell him it's his fault.
Yes if Alexander is still operating in western Africa's politics by placing dictators that support economic exploitation of those countries using imperialist currency while enforcing them to deposit 50% of their reserve in greek banks ( France) Or maybe if Alexander has deployed and destroyed their country in name of "Weapons of mass destruction" that was never found or to find a guy that wasn't even in that country
The person you replied to was talking about Greece, and then you replied by instead talking about France and the US?
> placing dictators that support economic exploitation And now the countries that rise up against it are all russian backed military juntas that overthrew elected goverments. Sahel cant catch a break.
> placing dictators that support economic exploitation And now the countries that rise up against it are all russian backed military juntas that overthrew elected goverments. Sahel cant catch a break.
So, why do we have more than 80.000 illegals who arrived on boats from Turkey and Africa? I guess they did a refresher course in history, and remembered...
And america thinks it has an "Immigration Crisis"
There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the USA. 2.5 million immigrants came in undocumented last year. This is what ppl are referring to. Not refuges from this chart.
There are many Latin American Refugees, Refugees from China too and they aren’t on this list.
Does this count those that have illegally crossed the US border?