I think your insistence that limitation on refugees being nonsense misses a crucial factor in this case. It is far easier to take in refugees with more common culture, and clearly individuals from a neighber like Ukraine is far easier than other places in the world in that respect.
Further, eastern European countries clearly see this as a form of defiance toward a situation that threatens them directly. Therefore, it is not just a matter of helping out others, but their own interests they are indirectly supporting. Albeit in a positive manner.
And before you announce this being unpleasant bias, please post the number of refugees you have taken in from anywhere, especially some place where the people have many differences in culture. Where there is a will there is a way, right?
"The standard explanation is “greater cultural similarity.”"
We were part of one nation not that long ago. We are very similar genetically. We speak similar languages. We are almost indistinguishable by looks. Quite similar culture and mentality. And yes, we are both Slavs.
I do not understand why anyone can compare this situation to accepting immigrants from, say Syria. It's like saying that "hey, why you refuse to drink vodka, after all you drink cidre, and both are alcohols, so what's the difference?"
Now that the Syrian refugees have been in Germany and Turkey for a few years have you seen any data that supports or refutes any of the points you made in open borders?
My guess is that Poland will, much like the U.S., be around 90% Black and 10% Indian by the end of the century, though less White than the U.S. due to less inherited institutional wealth. If they go "refugees welcome" so intensely, what's to stop them from importing Christian Nigerians and Congolese?
I think your insistence that limitation on refugees being nonsense misses a crucial factor in this case. It is far easier to take in refugees with more common culture, and clearly individuals from a neighber like Ukraine is far easier than other places in the world in that respect.
Further, eastern European countries clearly see this as a form of defiance toward a situation that threatens them directly. Therefore, it is not just a matter of helping out others, but their own interests they are indirectly supporting. Albeit in a positive manner.
And before you announce this being unpleasant bias, please post the number of refugees you have taken in from anywhere, especially some place where the people have many differences in culture. Where there is a will there is a way, right?
"The standard explanation is “greater cultural similarity.”"
We were part of one nation not that long ago. We are very similar genetically. We speak similar languages. We are almost indistinguishable by looks. Quite similar culture and mentality. And yes, we are both Slavs.
I do not understand why anyone can compare this situation to accepting immigrants from, say Syria. It's like saying that "hey, why you refuse to drink vodka, after all you drink cidre, and both are alcohols, so what's the difference?"
Now that the Syrian refugees have been in Germany and Turkey for a few years have you seen any data that supports or refutes any of the points you made in open borders?
My guess is that Poland will, much like the U.S., be around 90% Black and 10% Indian by the end of the century, though less White than the U.S. due to less inherited institutional wealth. If they go "refugees welcome" so intensely, what's to stop them from importing Christian Nigerians and Congolese?