Some immigration food for thought.

bonkey

I haven't put the following in any of the referenda threads, because I don't see it as being specifically linked to the referendum (although Friday 11th's vote does make it more topical I guess).

Last night, I came across the newest set of figures concerning the population of Switzerland, and I thought that those figures provide some interesting discussion points.

In Switzerland, 20% (*) of the current population do not have Swiss passports. For lack of a better term, they are foreign nationals, living in Switzerland.

(* : That is not a typo. I do indeed mean one in every five people.)

Of that 20%, 56% are of European extraction, and 44% are of non-European extraction. That would make almost 1 of every 10 people non-European, and only slightly more than that as European non-nationals.

I don't have the exact number to hand, but I think its 1,445,000 non-nationals in a total population of 7,200,000

OF this total, approximately 93,000 (again, not a typo. Ninety Three Thousand is exactly what I mean) received a permit for the first time in 2003.

I do not - at present - have more detailed breakdowns in terms of nation, nor in terms of how many Swiss nationals are only Swiss through naturalisation (or are, say, Swiss-born but with parents who were naturalised).

Nor do I have a breakdown in terms of how many of these incumbents were asylum-seekers, how many
were economic migrants, and how many are - like me - came here for some other reason (in my case, its luuurve).

Switzerland is showing increases in criminal activity (notably violent crime), and has shown a voting shift (not to be confused with an ideological shift) towards right-wing parties. It is undeniable that these tendencies are at least partially related to the non-national numbers, but quite how related they are is hard to say.

On the flip-side, Switzerland remains one of most peaceful, affluent, highest-standard-of-living nations in the world, and Swiss culture is - by all accounts, and from what I can see - going from strength to strength.

Anyway, I just thought it would be food for thought for anyone who's interested.

Its quite easy to see that Switzerland and Ireland are significantly different situations, so I would be wary of drawing too many inferences for Ireland from the niformation above, but I would also be wary of anyone who sought to dismiss it as completely irrelevant.

Cheers,

jc

arcadegame2004

The shift to far-right parties like that led by Christian Blocher seems to support my warnings of what will happen in Ireland if the issues giving rise to resentment in Ireland stemming from abuse of our asylum-system are not addressed.

arcadegame2004

In truth, given that Switzerland is surrounded by EU states, which are NOT persecuting anyone, it seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland. They are economic migrants, so I fail to see why you draw distinctions between economic migrants and asylum-seekers.

mike65

Interesting figuers, I think the non-national % of pop here is 9% open to correction on that though. Of that I'd guess 70% are EU citizens (including new states) and of that I'd say 70% are UK.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In truth, given that Switzerland is surrounded by EU states, which are NOT persecuting anyone, it seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland.

Firstly, ever heard of airplanes? They can go over entire countries without landing there.

Secondly, wuold you like to show me where the Swiss have this agreement in place with the EU, because as far as I, my swiss girlfriend (who works in a legal position), and - as far as we can determine - Swiss law, there is nothing about refusing asylum to people when Switzerland isn't the first safe port of call.

But please...I'm not saying such an agreement doesn't exist....I'm just asking you to show it to me, given that you clearly are aware of it going by your allegations.

They are economic migrants, so I fail to see why you draw distinctions between economic migrants and asylum-seekers.

So the thousands of Tamils who came to Switzerland some time ago came here for money - not because their nation was in the middle of an incredibly bloody civil war????

Exactly how do you determine this (and if you're going to use the first port of call argument, please show me that it actually applies to Switzerland before you do).

jc

MadsL

given that Switzerland is surrounded by EU states, which are NOT persecuting anyone, it seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland.

Not according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, 'If the Swiss people vote "yes" to this initiative, the result will be that any refugee who arrives in Switzerland overland will be rejected outright, however well-founded his or her claim might be. Since the great majority of refugees arriving in Switzerland come overland, this means the country will have more-or-less shut its doors to people fleeing persecution, even people who have escaped atrocities, massacres or torture.'

he was talking about a referendum that was held in 2002 to change the law so that refugees and asylum-seekers would be rejected out of hand if they arrived in Switzerland. The Swiss People's Party wanted to establish a list of safe countries. Anyone who passed through a neighbouring country would be summarily expelled without his or her case being heard.

Much like you seem to be proposing for Ireland, arcade.

According to justice minister, Ruth Metzler, the proposals were "counterproductive, expensive and in contradiction to Switzerland's humanitarian traditions"

The Swiss rejected the proposal.

arcadegame2004

he was talking about a referendum that was held in 2002 to change the law so that refugees and asylum-seekers would be rejected out of hand if they arrived in Switzerland. The Swiss People's Party wanted to establish a list of safe countries. Anyone who passed through a neighbouring country would be summarily expelled without his or her case being heard.

It is COMPLETELY different from this referendum proposal in Ireland.

There is NOTHING about the establishment of a list of safe countries.

Nothing about being summarily expelled.

It is simply about ending the abuse of our CITIZENSHIP laws by women who treat Irish citizenship like a souvenir, to be taken freely by anyone who happens to fly into Ireland while in late pregnancy.

By the way, the Swiss result was extremely close. 0.1% I think.

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, Switzerland is NOT in the EU and I have never said that it is party to the Dublin Convention. And the Tamils are more than likely to have enterred other safe countries prior to entry in Switzerland. So life in Switzerland was not really refuge from anything, that they would not have gained refuge from by claiming asylum in one of the EU states they passed through to get to Switzerland.

MadsL

It is COMPLETELY different from this referendum proposal in Ireland.

Yes, you seem to be able to say with complete blase confidence that

it seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland.

You truly are a piece of work.

IF you can come up with a single shred of evidence that asylum-seekers in Ireland are being 'given' free houses I will donate 100 euro to a charity of your choice. You have 24 hours.

Meh

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In truth, given that Switzerland is surrounded by EU states, which are NOT persecuting anyone, it seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland. They are economic migrants, so I fail to see why you draw distinctions between economic migrants and asylum-seekers.

Why can't they be both? If I had to leave my country due to persecution, I'd rather seek refuge in a prosperous country than a poor one. That doesn't take away from the fact that I really am fleeing persecution -- I'm still entitled to protection under the UN Convention on Refugees.

arcadegame2004

Meh I'm puzzled by your apparent regarding of France, Austria and Germany as poor countries.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, Switzerland is NOT in the EU

I've lived here in Switzerland for over 3 years now, so I'm pretty sure I knew that already.

I also know that I never claimed otherwise, so I'm not sure what you're getting so bothered about trying to point it out with that capital NOT and all.....

and I have never said that it is party to the Dublin Convention.

Yes, I know that. But you took a concept that - as far as I am aware - really only exists in the Dublin Convention and decided to apply it here.

You've said...and I quote...that it "seems impossible for there to be genuine asylum-seekers in Switzerland"

No, it doesn't.

It seems impossible if and only if you presume that genuine asylum seekers are only those who seek asylum in the first safe country, and - should they be refused - never seek asylum in any other nation ever again.

On the other hand, if you use the legal definition - which would be prudent given that asylum is a legal concept, then you're talking through your hat, because the legal definition of what constitutes an asylum seeker changes from country to country, and in Switzerland there is no requirement to only accept asylum seekers when Switzerland is the first safe port of call.

And the Tamils are more than likely to have enterred other safe countries prior to entry in Switzerland.

So what?

Legally, that doesn't affect their asylum-status over here, so in every meaningful sense of the word, they are genuine asylum seekers. At least as far as we here in Switzerland are concerned.

You may be of the opinion that they are not genuine, but hey....given the choice between a third-party opinion and what the law says, I know where I put my faith in what does and does not count as genuine.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by MadsL

IF you can come up with a single shred of evidence that asylum-seekers in Ireland are being 'given' free houses I will donate 100 euro to a charity of your choice. You have 24 hours.

Hey...come on....after complaining about there being too many referenda threads, you're squarely trying to create another one?

Or am I missing how this is in some way related to the immigration figures from Switzerland?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Meh I'm puzzled by your apparent regarding of France, Austria and Germany as poor countries.

I'm puzzled by your absolute inability to understand the concept of aircraft.

jc

MadsL

Sorry, not my intention to hijack the thread but I did feel it was

in some way related to the immigration figures

Care to contribute a tenner into the 'bribe Arcade to come up with evidence' fund. Perhaps brown envelopes are the way forward?

arcadegame2004

Well in my opinion an asylum-seeker should only be considered genuine if:

A:They are fleeing persecution/famine/war.

AND

B:Ireland is the first EU country they enter.

combs

bonkey, link a few sources for the statistics you quote in the opening post please. Then, maybe, this thread might show the first signs of sensibility.

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well in my opinion an asylum-seeker should only be considered genuine if:

A:They are fleeing persecution/famine/war.

AND

B:Ireland is the first EU country they enter.

Lucky for most people then that rather than your opinion their fate lies with the law.

MrP

PS I will donate a tenner to the fund if Arcade posts proof of the free houses.

arcadegame2004

By free houses I mean the "centres" that the asylum-seekers are housed in at the taxpayer's expense. They include local-authoity housing and as such place Irish people further back in an already seemingly endless housing-list.

minority

IF you can come up with a single shred of evidence that asylum-seekers in Ireland are being 'given' free houses I will donate 100 euro to a charity of your choice. You have 24 hours.

I rent a house to an asylum seeking family.

They do however only pay me €50 rent per month while i get the balance paid by the good people of Ireland into my bank account

Some do get them completely free though and pay nothing from their own pockets. Most likely because they have nothing.

But Irish social welfare recipients receive the same benefits, so while it is possible to say that asylum seekers get virtually free houses, they are by no means doing anything that the natives dont. Therefore its unfair to pick on them.

MadsL

But Irish social welfare recipients receive the same benefits, so while it is possible to say that asylum seekers get virtually free houses, they are by no means doing anything that the natives dont. Therefore its unfair to pick on them.

My point exactly.

Arcade, don't come with the "that's not what I meant" crap. Either apologise or post evidence.

place Irish people further back in an already seemingly endless housing-list.

Might have something to do with local authority housing being sold after 12 months at a discount to the tenants. Next you will be complaining about asylum-seekers buying houses at a discount.

Come on stop trying to crawl out of it...either apologise or post evidence (or donate 100 to the irish refugee council)

MadsL

The Irish Refugee Council has this to say on the issue;

---

Currently approximately 5,000 people — from over 100 nationalities — are living in different forms of temporary communal accommodation in 84 centres in 24 counties. The number accommodated in each centre varies from 20 to 400, and many of the larger centres are situated on the edge of towns or suburbs leaving asylum seekers segregated from mainstream society, both physically and mentally.

---

Hardly having a house bought for them, and being handed the keys and deeds as you suggest.



source

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well in my opinion an asylum-seeker should only be considered genuine if:

A:They are fleeing persecution/famine/war.

AND

B:Ireland is the first EU country they enter.

Ireland? Ireland??????

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SWITZERLAND.

YOU were the one who started by saying that people coming into Switzerland couldn't be real asylum seekers, and now thats because Ireland has to be the first EU Country they enter???????

So the Tamils in Switzerland, according to arcadegame2004, cannot be genuine asylum seekers because Ireland wasn't the first EU country they entered?

Brilliant. Absolutely fscking brilliant.

arcadegane2004 : Could you please stop trying to hijack this thread to continue spouting your already-ridiculed propaganda about yoru opposition to the upcoming referendum.

Seriously...you've got a myriad of them already open. You are able to start threads yourself.

This thread is not about the referendum. How fscking clear do I need to make that.

If you're not able to grasp this, I'm going to have to ask either the other mods or an admin to give me a third-party opinion as to whether or not I'm justified in asking that you be banned from this forum until the referendum has ended. I've given you every chance, but enough is enough.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by combs
bonkey, link a few sources for the statistics you quote in the opening post please. Then, maybe, this thread might show the first signs of sensibility.

'Fraid not. My girlfriend's company get a monthly newsletter from an association of Swiss legal experts which updates employers etc. on issues to do with employment etc.

The figures were in this, and I also heard them mentioned recently on the radio - again over here in Switzerland.

I haven't found an online link yet.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by MadsL
Hardly having a house bought for them, and being handed the keys and deeds as you suggest.

How many times do I have to ask? Keep your little spat to the relevant threads.

Coming from someone who hounded the mods in every way imaginable to get rid of the duplicate threads, and having already pointed this out in this thread, I can't believe you're doing this.

Same to you as to arcade - if you can't stop hijacking this thread, I'll be asking the others for you to be removed from the forum until post-referendum.

jc

Imposter

What voting rights, if any, do you have in Switzerland bonkey? What power, if any, do the immigrants wield?

Situation seems quite similar here in Austria where the local FPO (Far right - Haider's party) candidate running for Europe is using the slogan:

Turkey in the EU - not with me

Couldn't quite believe it when I first seen it.

Funnily enough though in the last general election here the FPO suffered a serious drop in seats (from more or less joint second they dropped to just about 3rd choice party, in a four party system) but imo racist undertones if anything seem to be on the rise here.

Crime is being highlighted more as an issue too although it hasn't translated itself into more right-wing voters yet.

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
What voting rights, if any, do you have in Switzerland bonkey? What power, if any, do the immigrants wield?

Varies from canton to canton, what type of permit you have, how long you've had that permit.

Typically, until you've been around 5 years or otherwise gain a C-Class permit, you have no voting rights. With a C-Class permit, you typically gain the right to vote in local, possibly cantonal, but not national, referenda.

Personally, I currently have no voting rights. Haven't been around here long enough. In another year or two, I get local rights if I'm still here, and can also apply for citizenship (which is determined by...surprise surprise...a local (townland) vote in the next referendum after I apply once I meet the eligibility requirements).

Crime is being highlighted more as an issue too although it hasn't translated itself into more right-wing voters yet.

Yeah, there was some interesting figures about crime recently over here too. There should be some articles on the main page of www.swissinfo.ch if anyone's interested. Basically, the initial figures were reported as something like 56% of crime being by non-nationals. The police have since corrected this, as - in fact - that is the percentage applied to suspects, not convictions.

jc

MadsL

Bonkey, my apologies. I will not be posting in this thread. It was not my intention as I said to hijack this thread. Swiss away. Point taken.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
In Switzerland, 20% (*) of the current population do not have Swiss passports.

Apparently only 50% of Americans have passports

Anyway, given Switzerlands relatively open borders and work permit situation (used to prevent low unemployment causing inflation), the figure isn't really a surprise.

Luxembourg of course, increase in population by about 50% after the morning rush hour.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Apparently only 50% of Americans have passports

Touche

Poor wording on my part.

Anyway, given Switzerlands relatively open borders and work permit situation (used to prevent low unemployment causing inflation), the figure isn't really a surprise.

Apparently they've also got the highest number of refugees (i.e. successful asylum seekers) per-capita in Europe.

Some numbers I've come across.....

The number of asylum seekers dropped by 20 per cent in 2003, with 20,806 applications. Meanwhile the number of rejections rose to 7,818,

Source

(2003 was a "quiet" year, apparently, with only 13,000-odd refugees granted[ asylum)

Since 1979 the total number of people holding annual residence permits or "permis d'établissement" (giving extended rights of residence) and employees of international organisations entering the country has exceeded the number leaving. Net immigration of foreign nationals in Switzerland increased again in 2000 to almost 24 900 people (compared with 20 900 in 1999), thus returning to its 1995 level.

In addition to the migration of those groups of foreigners who form part of the permanently resident population, account should be taken of the migration of seasonal workers and asylum-seekers and also of border workers. In 2000, the average number of seasonal workers entering Switzerland increased slightly to 22 400 (compared with 20 200 in 1999 and 20 700 in 1998).

The number of asylum-seekers (cases pending in the asylum procedure, provisional admissions and technically blocked departures), which was very high in 1999, decreased in 2000 to 72 000, compared with 107 010 in 1999 and 93 800 in 1998.

Source

Looking at those figures, the number of asylum seekers would seem to form a rather significant amount within the non-national makeup, at least in terms of a breakdown of the year-by-year increases.

jc

Sand

Arcades point about non-nationals in Switzerland being migrants rather than refugees is valid enough and cant be simply sneered away with references to aircraft.

Refugees are granted special rights and indeed there is a duty upon countries to take them in and provide for them. This is on the basis that they are fleeing some group or power that is persecuting them.

Once refugees are beyond the power of those persecuting them, they are logically no longer refugees and any further movement they undertake is that of migrants, economic or otherwise.

Once you take that into account, and look at the countries surrounding Switizerland its hard to see how there could be genuine asylum seekers in Switzerland. There are migrants, sure - but not too many refugees.

Regarding the airplanes, as I understand it the vast majority of refugees arrive in Europe after highly dangerous and costly overland and oversea transport in less than business class accomadation, on which many die. Its a darwinian proccess, those who make it to Europe are often some of the best qualified, educated, confident and relatively wealthy people - the rest either are too poor to flee or die in the attempt. Relatively few fly in as far as I know, given problems with passports and documentation as well as cost though Im sure theyd love to.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, Switzerland is NOT in the EU and I have never said that it is party to the Dublin Convention

... this would be the Dublin Convention that is no longer applicable in 24 out of 25 EU States in any case (and we're not the 25th) and that Switzerland was never a party to.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Once refugees are beyond the power of those persecuting them, they are logically no longer refugees and any further movement they undertake is that of migrants, economic or otherwise.

OK. I'll bite.

So by your logic they are migrants, whilst legally they are asylum seekers. Not only that, but they are legally asylum seekers in a nation where the legal definition of such things can be changed by the will of the people. So, while they may be logically migrants (at least by your logic), they are both legally and popularly asylum seekers.

I'm struggling to see how your logic works, Sand. The law, and the will of the people say otherwise...so exactly what is this logic based on, if not someone else's law, or someone else's wishes. You seem to be judging the Swiss by the standards that the Dublin Convention now applies to exactly one country, but which isn't a legal standard anywhere else that I can think of

Once you take that into account, and look at the countries surrounding Switizerland its hard to see how there could be genuine asylum seekers in Switzerland.

Not hard at all. If the Swiss people thought otherwise, these "incoming" would no longer be classed as asylum seekers. The people clearly don't think otherwise.

Unless, of course, you think the Swiss should accept somebody else's (some other nation's or nations') definition of what constitutes asylum seekers? Of course, saying that without also agreeing that Ireland should hand control of its own process over to the EU would be somewhat hypocritical.

Arguing that crossing some border makes you no longer an asylum seeker is an argument of convenience, not logic.

I reckon that if there was a direct connection between Ireland and some nation which was generating millions of refugees, many of the people backing this "only neighbours give asylum" proposal would turn around and argue that its all well and good in tehory, but its now causing us to get too many refugees, so we should adopt a more balanced approach which lets us offload them, or lets them go somewhere else. This is, of course, an unproveable assumption, but if you look at the "logic" underlying the "not seeking asylum, but is an immigrant", its basically "I want you to .be safe, but just not here. Let someone closer to your home look after you."

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
Arcades point about non-nationals in Switzerland being migrants rather than refugees is valid enough and cant be simply sneered away with references to aircraft.

The problem with Arcades point is that is assumes way too much. His argument is basically if they were genuine assylum seekers then they would stop in the first country they were safe in. The distrubing part is his conclusion that if they do not stop then they are not genuine assylum seekers. That is a very dangerous conclusion, and it reminds me of the argument "an innocent person wouldn't run from the police" or "an innocent person would have nothing to hide" that has been used in tyranny states for hundreds of years. One cannot assume guilt on a person simply based on their failure to follow certain conditions. A person who is raped, but fails to contact the police till months later, was still raped. A person in fear of their life, who applys for asylum in the 2nd EU contry they enter, is still a person in fear of their life.

Originally posted by Sand
Once refugees are beyond the power of those persecuting them, they are logically no longer refugees and any further movement they undertake is that of migrants, economic or otherwise.

They are asylum seekers until they have been granted asylum. The only question that is relievent is "does this person need asylum?" The question of why they did not apply for asylum in the last country they were in does not effect the this question.

Originally posted by Sand
Once you take that into account, and look at the countries surrounding Switizerland its hard to see how there could be genuine asylum seekers in Switzerland.

Again that is an assumption, that should not effect the weight of a persons asylum application. Using the example from the first paragraph, it is hard for me to see how a person who has been raped whould not go straight to the police. But it happens all the time. Does this mean they weren't raped? Of course not. In this day and age it would be a very silly/misinformed person that would stand up and say "I don't believe anyone who doesn't contact the police within a few hours, was raped." You apply a standard that a person must up hold, i.e. apply in the first port of call. If they fail to meet your standard you consider them lying. But it is possible they don't meet your standard, but are still telling the truth.

Originally posted by Sand
Its a darwinian proccess, those who make it to Europe are often some of the best qualified, educated, confident and relatively wealthy people - the rest either are too poor to flee or die in the attempt.

So if they are well educated, confident and wealthy why do they risk injury or death to travel to a country that won't let them work for a year and then, if they are lucky, only in McDonalds?

Sand

So, while they may be logically migrants (at least by your logic), they are both legally and popularly asylum seekers.

They are logically migrants, to my mind, for the reasons I have given. The Swiss lawmakers have little choice but to view them as asylum *seekers*, as they are indeed *seeking* asylum in Switzerland. Id view the claim of asylum by people who are logically not refugees as an abuse and exploitation of the definition of a refugee, who rightfully *demand* extraordinary rights and consideration from States above and beyond that of a migrant - which has real implications for actual refugees which I will come to later.

And refuting a criticism of a legal claim, with the reponse that its legal means an argument is A) not really a good refution given that I can list cases where historically the law has made and defended cases which were and are incorrect, unjust and indeed immoral - often with the popular support of the people, and Is fairly circular.

Unless, of course, you think the Swiss should accept somebody else's (some other nation's or nations') definition of what constitutes asylum seekers?

The Swiss lawmakers and their electorate have every right to be wrong, as their actions are not *directly* harming anyone unlike other legal wrongs that have been practisced such as slavery and apartheid which were both legal and popular at different times and still are today to some degree in many regions. I dont have to agree they are correct simply because they believe they are.

Arguing that crossing some border makes you no longer an asylum seeker is an argument of convenience, not logic.

Right, on to the implications of the generous exstension of refugee status to migrants.

Most nations retain some degree over control of their borders and the passage of people, capital and goods through them. If I want to go work in Switzerland ( and a friend of mine is leaving to do so shortly ) I would apply for a visa/permit/whatever and have to satisfy whatever requirement the Swiss law demands. Its up to the Swiss and their lawmakers as to what standards they set. This is widely if not totally accepted as being just and fair.

Refugees are the exception - they are fleeing horrific oppression or crimes against them that are so great that humanity and common decency demands that states provide succor for refugees regardless of other standards. Processing asylum claims is simply determining whether these people are actual refugees or are just migrants who must satisfy the standards set. Once youre accepted as a valid refugee then the State *must* ensure your safty from those oppressing you.

What were seeing now is the attempt by a large amount of people to abuse this principle, claiming to be refugees when they logically cannot be. Their motivation is simple and understandable - they want to live in a particular country, they see a loophole and hope to capitalise on ignorance and politicial correctness in exploiting it.

Were also seeing a lot of extremist quasi nationalist groups and parties making serious gains in Netherlands, France, Austria and other European nations which have seen a lot of these abuses. This is not unconnected. By encouraging, tolerating and assisting these abuses parties are encouraging an attitude that ALL non nationals are asylum seekers, that ALL asylum seekers are ripping off their hosts, that the hosts are TOO generous and asylum seekers, because theyre all really migrants and hoaxers, should be discouraged from claiming in the first place.

So Europeans vote for extremist parties that articulate and harness their discontent, and because theyre extremist single issues parties with little to say on other issues Europe gets increasingly bad government - hell, because of the discontent all non-nationals feel threatened and become ghettoised or even better yet retreat to their own extremists. Genuine refugees get shafted by countries redefining their duties towards asylum seekers. Everyones a loser.

All so people can ignore laws governing migration into a country. But, of course, these laws are only pretend laws.

if you look at the "logic" underlying the "not seeking asylum, but is an immigrant", its basically "I want you to .be safe, but just not here. Let someone closer to your home look after you."

Actually its more - Dont expect me to treat seriously a person resident in France as a refugee from the French. To do so only leads to bad outcomes for my own country and genuine refugees whose moral case ( and the rights of refugees are based on morality alone, they have no democratic mandate or power ) will be diluted by popular perceptions that theyre all hoaxers.

His argument is basically if they were genuine assylum seekers then they would stop in the first country they were safe in. The distrubing part is his conclusion that if they do not stop then they are not genuine assylum seekers.

Nothing, on the surface, wrong with that analysis beyond the fact id stress *no longer genuine* rather than simply *not genuine* which I think mis-represents Arcades, and certainly my own position. Once theyre safe from persecution they are no longer refugees by definition. Any further movement is on the basis of migration.

A person who is raped, but fails to contact the police till months later, was still raped. A person in fear of their life, who applys for asylum in the 2nd EU contry they enter, is still a person in fear of their life.

Slight misdirection there - A refugee is fleeing persecution, he is as you say in fear for his life - he has not lost his life. Once that fear is removed, by say reaching any EU country, then it is hard to claim that he is still in fear of his life and a refugee from the French and thus justified in claiming asylum in Luxembourg.

They are asylum seekers until they have been granted asylum. The only question that is relievent is "does this person need asylum?" The question of why they did not apply for asylum in the last country they were in does not effect the this question.

Sure it does - if someone arrives from France claiming asylum in Switzerland then the Swiss need only ask if not providing asylum would mean the French would persecute the individual. The French are, all things considered, fairly committed to human rights so its hard to argue the man would be in fear of his life from the French.

But it is possible they don't meet your standard, but are still telling the truth.

True, but there are so many things we dont know about *every* decision that if we were to try and bring them into an equation we would be unable to make any decision ever for fear of making the wrong one. We accept that we dont know everything and make decisions on the best infomation we have available to us.

So if they are well educated, confident and wealthy why do they risk injury or death to travel to a country that won't let them work for a year and then, if they are lucky, only in McDonalds?

Id assume its because they view the life of even a McDonalds worker as being of a higher quality than the life they see for themselves in their own countries. Which, when we move beyond No Logo rhetoric is probably true.

Its a double tragedy as I touched on before in replying to Bonkey. Whilst of course their own countries are losing a group of their best and brightest to the developed world, their talents and skills are wasted because a combination of our immigration laws and asylum processing encourages people to claim asylum as a loophole, precluding them from working or contributing their skills to the economy at all.

Theres a couple of ways that the issue can be dealt with - most of them are wrong. Refugees are not some form of "super-migrant". Encouraging migrants to claim asylum is not going to solve anything. If we need their skills ( and we do, EUs population is aging and wont sustain the social model for too long at this rate ) then lets solve the problem - our immigration laws. But lets not kid ourselves either that we arent taking the developing worlds best and brightest, hindering their own development, to improve our own.

Were not doing anyone any favours by forcing people to enter the EU illegally and extremely dangerously to claim asylum rather than processing them as migrants legally and safely.

Of course one problem is that unions are heavily opposed to immigrant workers undercutting their members.