Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

creeper1

Obviously by the time this year is done, tens of thousands of people will have made the perilous journey across continents for a better life in Europe. This article puts it at millions but doesn't give a time frame. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32912867


My first question concerns cherry picking. As i understand it, economic migrants should not be making this journey and genuine asylum seekers are the only ones that will be allowed to stay. Successful applicants can stay safely in a European country but not work in that country. Why then, when interviewed, do so many applicants state they don't want to remain in Greece or Italy but move to more prosperous countries such as Germany or the United Kingdom?

My second question is regarding assessing whether an asylum claim is genuine or not. Many of the applicants don't have travel documents or they destroyed them. I am guessing they have answers prepared saying they protested against a regime in their home country or they were persecuted. How on earth can someone judge the validity of these claims?

Thirdly- many of the migrants are economic. They shouldn't be making this journey but are anyway. Are they sent home? I can't imagine them agreeing to that. Also if they are sent home, who pays for the flight tickets?

Fourthly- are the migrants generally educated enough to make a contribution towards our economy. If they aren't who is going to pay for their education? Housing and food? Childcare etc. Greece is in the middle of a severe austerity program.

Finally do you agree that this issue is a bigger problem than Greece bailout as merkel said a while back. If so, why?

Peregrinus

Worth pointing out that "genuine asylum seekers" and "economic migrants" are not mutually exclusive; they're overlapping categories. You can have a well-founded fear of persecution in your home country, and one aspect of that persecution may be that it is difficult or impossible for you to earn a living there, or to better your situation, or to live at a standard that enables you to participate in your society, and one of the things you hope to achieve by fleeing is to access the economic opportunities that are denied to you. Asylum-seeker or economic migrant? Both, obviously.

This, of course, explains why many seek to go to countries that afford better opportunities. Those Jews who escaped from Germany before 1939 usually had a least a partial economic motive for doing so, and they overwhelmingly tried to escape to countries where there were better opportunities for them - the UK, the US, France - rather than, say, Spain or Greece. Would you argue that they weren't genuine asylum-seekers?

Worldwide, most asylum seekers in fact want to return home, if there is any prospect of doing so in safety, and within a reasonable timeframe. But those that don't want to, or don't think they will be able to, don't want to spend the rest of their lives rotting. They want to make new lives for themselves, and that involves education, economic activity, the possibility of acquiring a home, settling, raising a family. That's entirely to be expected, and the fact that they want to go places where their chances of doing these things are maximised doesn't in any way suggest that they are not genuine asylum-seekers.

As for an asylum-seeker who doesn't have travel documents, I don't think they have to present this as some kind of protest. "I needed to get out of Syria. In the chaos of the region I didn't need a passport to do so. I wasn't going to waste time applying and waiting for one, especially as I had no confidence that I would be given one. So I crossed the border without a passport. What you would you have done, in my situation?"

As for whether migrants are "educated enough to make a contribution to our economy", obviously this is going to vary from migrant to migrant, and it's going to depend on what countries they are coming from, and what kind of education they got there before it all turned to shlt. In general, though, migrants make a positive contribution to the economies of the countries to which they immigrate. And, remember, you don't need a PhD to make a contribution to the general well-being. There's no reason to think that migrants motivated by a fear of persecution will be an exception to this rule. What might be a problem is very large numbers arriving all at once, or being concentrated in a particular corner of the country, or the region. Yes, Greece is in the middle of a huge financial shltstorm, which would make a rule saying that asylum-seekers must stay in Greece if that's the country they first arrived in a very silly rule.

Rightwing

Ireland isn't doing enough here. We are talking the talk, and little else. I agree with Merkel.

Why not bring the ships to Ireland instead of the nearest port? Would our navy be so good then ?

A ridiculous situation at the moment.

Iwasfrozen

If these people are only seeking safety then why always move into Western Europe? Russia is closer to Syria than Ireland.

Also why move once they've reached a safe country? If a migrant lands in Italy then why leave Italy to move into France or Britain?

Rightwing

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If these people are only seeking safety then why always move into Western Europe? Russia is closer to Syria than Ireland.

Also why move once they've reached a safe country? If a migrant lands in Italy then why leave Italy to move into France or Britain?

I'll hazard a guess here: the highlighted word is out of place. Safety is their priority, but since they are on the move, move to the place that affords them the best opportunity. That's what I would be doing anyway.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If these people are only seeking safety then why always move into Western Europe? Russia is closer to Syria than Ireland.

Also why move once they've reached a safe country? If a migrant lands in Italy then why leave Italy to move into France or Britain?

There are many reasons, what if their non native language is English or Spanish or French or whatever. I would say you would want to get to a country that you could speak the language

A Primal Nut

Well most are going to Germany so i doubt that's the reason.

Encouraging more illegal migrants to come is resulting in more and more deaths almost every day.

Iwasfrozen

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll hazard a guess here: the highlighted word is out of place. Safety is their priority, but since they are on the move, move to the place that affords them the best opportunity. That's what I would be doing anyway.

Then they're economic migrants and should be treated as such.

Send every boat back to Libya and boats will stop coming from Libya.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There are many reasons, what if their non native language is English or Spanish or French or whatever. I would say you would want to get to a country that you could speak the language

Then once again safety is not their only concern and they should be sent packing.

Rightwing

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then they're economic migrants and should be treated as such.

Send every boat back to Libya and boats will stop coming from Libya.



Then once again safety is not their only concern and they should be sent packing.

That would be my preferred choice, but it's easy for countries like Ireland to drop them off in Greece etc and try and claim the gold medal for being the most caring.

Iwasfrozen

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well most are going to Germany so i doubt that's the reason.

Encouraging more illegal migrants to come is resulting in more and more deaths almost every day.

This. The sugar needs to be taken off the table.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then once again safety is not their only concern and they should be sent packing.

Yes, that is the stance of most until they themselves are in that position, then the tune changes very quickly! It is called egocentric

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes, that is the stance of most until they themselves are in that position, then the tune change! It is called egocentric

What are you talking about? Who has been in that position and how do you know how anyone would react?

Encouraging boats to come across the med is costing lives.

c montgomery

Rightwing wrote: »

Ireland isn't doing enough here. We are talking the talk, and little else. I agree with Merkel.

Why not bring the ships to Ireland instead of the nearest port? Would our navy be so good then ?

A ridiculous situation at the moment.

Why should we do anything? Were a bankrupt country who sends hundreds of millions in aid already around the world already. I feel we do enough, time to look after ourselves first.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then they're economic migrants and should be treated as such.

Send every boat back to Libya and boats will stop coming from Libya.



Then once again safety is not their only concern and they should be sent packing.

There's no requirement that safety should be your only concern in order to qualify you as a genuine refugee. You can have as many worries and concerns as you like; if you have left your country because you have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion then you are a refugee.

As already pointed out, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany (when that was still possible) tried to go to France, the UK, the US other other countries that offered a good chance of settling and making a new life, rather than to Poland, Bulgaria, etc. If you apply your standards consistently,you would have sent them packing, since safety was not their only concern.

(Of course, in many cases they were sent back, or denied entry in the first place, and we know what happened to them afterwards. The whole point of the Refugee Convention was to try and ensure that that wouldn't happen again in the future.)

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no requirement that safety should be your only concern in order to qualify you as a genuine refugee. You can have as many worries and concerns as you like; if you have left your country because you have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion then you are a refugee.

As already pointed out, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany (when that was still possible) tried to go to France, the UK, the US other other countries that offered a good chance of settling and making a new life, rather than to Poland, Bulgaria, etc. If you apply your standards consistently,you would have sent them packing, since safety was not their only concern.

(Of course, in many cases they were sent back, or denied entry in the first place, and we know what happened to them afterwards. The whole point of the Refugee Convention was to try and ensure that that wouldn't happen again in the future.)

Anyone is allowed to claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there

Pointing out obvious law is obvious.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there

Pointing out obvious law is obvious.

Pretending you have pointed out obvious law when in fact you have said something completely different is even more obvious. Did you think we wouldn't notice it?

In your earlier post you didn't call for people to be sent to "safe third countries"; you called for them to be "sent packing" to Libya. And you did that on the basis that they were "economic migrants" because "safety is not their only concern"; it doesn't appear to have crossed your mind that they might have rights as refugees. You cannot seriously expect anyone to think that you believed sending them to Libya was a vindication of any rights they might have as refugees. Libya is not, on any view, a "safe third country". And even if it were you can't remove people there on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there, because they couldn't have; Libya is not a party to the Refugee Convention.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Send every boat back to Libya and boats will stop coming from Libya.

Maybe our naval vessels should torpedo them instead of rescuing them? That ought to discourage the sponging bastards.

NIMAN

Maybe it's time the west addressed why all these people are fleeing their own countries?

It seems strange to deal with the after effects of the problem, and not the initial cause.

A Primal Nut

Peregrinus wrote: »

As already pointed out, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany (when that was still possible) tried to go to France, the UK, the US other other countries that offered a good chance of settling and making a new life, rather than to Poland, Bulgaria, etc. If you apply your standards consistently,you would have sent them packing, since safety was not their only concern.

Poland and Bulgaria were as bad as Nazi Germany for Jews.

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretending you have pointed out obvious law when in fact you have said something completely different is even more obvious. Did you think we wouldn't notice it?

In your earlier post you didn't call for people to be sent to "safe third countries"; you called for them to be "sent packing" to Libya. And you did that on the basis that they were "economic migrants" because "safety is not their only concern"; it doesn't appear to have crossed your mind that they might have rights as refugees. You cannot seriously expect anyone to think that you believed sending them to Libya was a vindication of any rights they might have as refugees. Libya is not, on any view, a "safe third country". And even if it were you can't remove people there on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there, because they couldn't have; Libya is not a party to the Refugee Convention.

Sending back every refugee who passes through a safe country will solve the problem for Ireland.

Only the EU as a whole can send boats back to Libya.

actua11

creeper1 wrote: »

Successful applicants can stay safely in a European country but not work in that country. Why then, when interviewed, do so many applicants state they don't want to remain in Greece or Italy but move to more prosperous countries such as Germany or the United Kingdom?

Just something I won't to pick up on this as it's something I'm genuinely unsure of as we're outside the Schengen area, so it's not something I'm familiar with. ( Though I will say I accept the previous point that if English is your second language, you'll probably want to move away from Italy to these Islands)

As I understand, there is free movement for Schengen citizens within the Schengen area. However if you are a non-EU national who has applied for asylum in a Schengen country, do you then inherit this right of free movement or are you obliged to stick to the country that you have applied for asylum.

If so, I can't see how these migrants, economic or otherwise can move between countries in the EU, as applying for a job/tax number etc. in a country other than your named asylum home should be impossible. I ask as I have had friends who have had similar restrictions on Visas entering the EU and wonder if the same restrictions on movement apply to asylum?

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sending back every refugee who passes through a safe country will solve the problem for Ireland.

Sure - and if there's a hierarchy of problems to be solved, Ireland's are right at the pinnacle.

Those guys think they have it bad, trying to escape a war zone - we have foreigners coming here. The horror!

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - and if there's a hierarchy of problems to be solved, Ireland's are right at the pinnacle.

Those guys think they have it bad, trying to escape a war zone - we have foreigners coming here. The horror!

As mentioned before if escaping a warzone is their only concern there is no need to come to Western Europe let alone Ireland. Russia is safe, a signitary of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and (according to google maps) only a days drive from Damascus. Why aren't these people battering down Putin's door? Maybe because they're economic migrants, not genuine asylum seekers.

This is a European wide problem and needs to be dealt with at a European level but from Ireland's prospective we can at least turn down any asylum seeker who leaves a safe country to come here.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As mentioned before if escaping a warzone is their only concern there is no need to come to Western Europe let alone Ireland. Russia is safe, a signitary of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and (according to google maps) only a days drive from Damascus. Why aren't these people battering down Putin's door? Maybe because they're economic migrants, not genuine asylum seekers.

It's already been pointed out more than once that there is no contradiction at all in being both a genuine asylum seeker and an economic migrant. You persist in ignoring this, and continue to speak as if it's a fact of nature that somebody who is one cannot be the other.

If your view of the situation requires you to ignore reality, you must realise that very few people are going to find your view very persuasive.

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's already been pointed out more than once that there is no contradiction at all in being both a genuine asylum seeker and an economic migrant. You persist in ignoring this, and continue to speak as if it's a fact of nature that somebody who is one cannot be the other.

If your view of the situation requires you to ignore reality, you must realise that very few people are going to find your view very persuasive.

As has been pointed out to you, we or any other nation can return asylum seekers to safe third party nations they have passed through on the understanding they should have applied for asylum there.

The law does differentiate between genuine seekers and economic migrants despite your hypocritical attempt at deflection.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As has been pointed out to you, we or any other nation can return asylum seekers to safe third party nations they have passed through on the understanding they should have applied for asylum there.

You have called for them to be sent back to Libya. Libya is not a "safe third country".

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The law does differentiate between genuine seekers and economic migrants despite your hypocritical attempt at deflection.

Given your flannelling about "safe third countries" when your demands of rendition to Libya are callled out, you are not well positioned to accuse others of "hypocritical attempts at deflection".

I challenge you to quote me a provision of the law that distinguishes between refugees and economic migrants.

creeper1

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe it's time the west addressed why all these people are fleeing their own countries?

It seems strange to deal with the after effects of the problem, and not the initial cause.

Bush and Blair really screwed a lot of Iraq up.

Maybe all iraqis should be sent to the uk as punishment for their part of screwing up Iraq.

As for interference in the affairs of other countries such as in Africa and elsewhere that smacks of neo colonialism.

Colonialism belongs in the last century. Not now.

djpbarry

c montgomery wrote: »

Why should we do anything? Were a bankrupt country...

So what does that make Greece?

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Russia is safe…

Tell that to the people who were on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then once again safety is not their only concern and they should be sent packing.

These people are literally risking their lives crossing the Med on glorified rafts and you glibly dismiss them as not being terribly concerned about safety?

The Corinthian

There are two issues from what I can see. The first is whether someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not. Whether they are also economic migrants is immaterial as Peregrinus pointed out - however if they are not asylum seekers, then they should not qualify for residency because that is not why such residency, let alone any benefits, are there.

In this regard, it appears quite a few applicants are unlikely to be asylum seekers, even on the basis of their country of origin. For example, while there are a significant number of Syrians, Somalians and Afghans migrating to Europe, there are significant numbers of Kosovars, Nigerians and other nationalities that frankly do not come from countries where they are likely to have genuine asylum claims and the level of fraud involved has been breathtaking in some of these cases. So a more efficient processing of claims to be made is essential.

Secondly, just because an asylum seeker may want to find the best place to start a new life, economically, that does not mean they have a right to. The asylum process is there to take them out of harms way, not guarantee them a wonderful new life.

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have called for them to be sent back to Libya. Libya is not a "safe third country".

I did. But that can only be done after an agreement on EU level. The EU has the power to renegotiate or ignore the 1951 convention on the status of refugees to fit a changing world.

At a national level we cannot do this as we are forbidden by EU directive, we can however pressure the EU politically and send refugees when possible back to safe third party countries they have passed through to lobby for change in the status of refugees.

Given your flannelling about "safe third countries" when your demands of rendition to Libya are callled out, you are not well positioned to accuse others of "hypocritical attempts at deflection".

I challenge you to quote me a provision of the law that distinguishes between refugees and economic migrants.

Every single law on the status of refugees differentiates between the two, refugees are to be provided protection provided they did not pass through a safe country to get here, on the other hand economic migrants are not.