Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

Why would we ignore subsidiary protection?

These posts should provide context for that comment.

#577
#621
#630

K-9

jackofalltrades wrote: »

These posts should provide context for that comment.

#577
#621
#630

I don't know why anybody would exclude subsidiary protection as somehow not worthy or not a refugee or something. If its something to do with appeals, should they not be allowed one.

Our system does seem to drag on too long, something both sides of the debate agree on but I'm not seeing where subsidiary protection comes into that, unless you don't agree they should get it?

Lockstep

Those granted subsidiary protection are those ineligible for refugee status but where there's still a very real threat to their person from capital punishment, torture or (vital for Syria), a threat to their life from indiscriminate violence.

Given not all Syrians will be threatened for their race, religion or political views but still face indiscriminate violence (barrel bombs, chemical attacks), it's an important one. Hence why only 5% of Syrians are being denied asylum, presumably due to them being denied refugee status for being deemed a security risk and so on.

Ireland is quite unique in that subsidiary protection can only be granted after refugee status has been denied. This does not make the asylum seeker any less deserving of protection and is the fault of our bureaucracy, not the asylum seeker.

Jelle1880

Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know why anybody would exclude subsidiary protection as somehow not worthy or not a refugee or something. If its something to do with appeals, should they not be allowed one.

Our system does seem to drag on too long, something both sides of the debate agree on but I'm not seeing where subsidiary protection comes into that, unless you don't agree they should get it?

How did you come to that conclusion?
Have you read the thread?

Hexen

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.

Plausible I guess (but who knows) - denied by the German government who say they expect the flow to slow during the winter. Quite a logistical challenge simply processing that many people. Border controls are expensive and will result in very large camps on Europe's periphery. Solution, I guess, lies in Turkey. EU will have to offer them something to limit the flow.

gobsh!te

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.

That's bull. There will probably only be 100,000 refugees.

Stop believing the right wing propaganda.

Jelle1880

gobsh!te wrote: »

That's bull. There will probably only be 100,000 refugees.

Stop believing the right wing propaganda.

I clearly said it's Bild so make of it what you will, I never said I believe it. Just posting it because it's relevant to the thread.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-europe-migrants-germany-numbers-idUSKCN0RY0UY20151004

Reuters are also quoting Bild, but there's a lot of quotes in there from the report. Surely if they're lying about it the German government should tell them ?

Not even Bild would make up quotes from a confidential document.

As for 100.000, now there is some propaganda...

gobsh!te

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I clearly said it's Bild so make of it what you will, I never said I believe it. Just posting it because it's relevant to the thread.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-europe-migrants-germany-numbers-idUSKCN0RY0UY20151004

Reuters are also quoting Bild, but there's a lot of quotes in there from the report. Surely if they're lying about it the German government should tell them ?

Not even Bild would make up quotes from a confidential document.

As for 100.000, now there is some propaganda...

Well the government don't know anything about it. Are you insinuating that they are lying?

Come on, enough of the conspiracy stuff. We have a forum for that

Jelle1880

gobsh!te wrote: »

Well the government don't know anything about it. Are you insinuating that they are lying?

Come on, enough of the conspiracy stuff. We have a forum for that

Maybe, maybe not. They haven't exactly been that good in handling the entire situation, given that Merkel's popularity is at an all-time low it's not far fetched to think they may want to keep this quiet.

Do you think that the likes of the BBC, The Telegraph,... would take some Bild stuff over if they didn't think there may be something to it ?

I'm just giving some information about what may or may not be happening in Germany, there is nothing 'conspiracy' about it. Are you afraid to read anything that may conflict with your view on something ?

LegalBagezal

What I find funny in the whole situation is the criticism of bigger EU nations (Britain, Germany etc) against the treatment of migrants in Romania, honestly if Britain were in Romania's situation would they let uncontrolled unkown migrants from the middle east flood into their country?.. in fact I think the situation would be worse if Britain were in Romania's place, this is coming from someone living in the middle east.

catch2222

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.

The country is rotten with them as it we do not want any more.

ancapailldorcha

catch2222 wrote: »

The country is rotten with them as it we do not want any more.

This post is below the standard of debate expected here. Please read the charter before posting again.

imme

The End of Merkel
The End of Germany
The End of the EU

which of these if any of them will result from the current events in Europe

Did Angela Merkel go on a solo run when she declared that Germany open to all comers.
There wasn't much solidarity to be seen from other EU members following on from Merkels pronouncement.

Slovakia and some others announced that they would take some Christians.

Merkel was left as being the only leader to shoulder the responsibility for her pronouncement.

In recent days Turkey, the source of the transiting people, has been brought back into the frame again.
Turkey is central to the Syria situation, because of proximity and direct involvement.

Turkey has been 'offered' enhanced visa access to Europe, maybe even accelerated EU membership talks to keep hold of many of the people transiting through Turkey who express a wish to go to "Germania".

Has Merkel come to realise that she hadn't thought out what she was about.

If anyone is giving concessions to Turkey I'd like to have a vote on that.

Wurzelbert

imme wrote: »

The End of Merkel

possibly

imme wrote: »

The End of Germany

the finis germaniae happened some 70 years ago after 31 years of military and economic war against germany…what we have today is basically an american-controlled german economic zone with some internal sovereignty…

imme wrote: »

The End of the EU

hopefully

[...]

imme wrote: »

Did Angela Merkel go on a solo run when she declared that Germany open to all comers.

what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

[...]

Hexen

Wurzelbert wrote: »

what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

I'm not sure there was a 'welcome' announcement by Merkel as such - more reactions/defence of decision to suspend Dublin Convention for Syrian refugees (that happened on 24 August, btw; she did give out about right-wing attacks that same day when she was meeting Hollande to discuss refugee issue).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-opens-its-gates-berlin-says-all-syrian-asylum-seekers-are-welcome-to-remain-as-britain-is-10470062.html

She made numerous statements afterwards but really, it was already a crisis when the decision was made to suspend Dublin - which was badly broken anyway - and refugees were already streaming through Macedonia and on their way to Hungary. The miscalculation was that France and Germany could broker a remodeling of EU migration policy on their own.

rgossip30

Interesting to see how long Merkel will last and how much the Germans can take as each day she digs a bigger hole for herself.

imme

Wurzelbert wrote: »

p
what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

[...]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60264684-5af4-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3p8U9Z63C

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34173720

stringed theory

Searching this thread for perspective, I thought - Africa alone has a population of 1.1 billion with a projected total of 4 billion by the end of the century and all through a vast and unstable zone from Pakistan to Nigeria, a huge number of people are changing how they think.
I was recently about the Indian sub continent and Egypt and met people who even a year ago would have assumed they'd be arrested, detained and deported on arriving on a beach in Europe and now know different. In shanty towns, and even middle class suburbs, from Karachi to Kinshasa, the young and restless are thinking of making the move. And how could anyone blame them, if they've seen these places?
It does not take a war for people to face danger to better themselves. Look at the Mexico US border where half a million illegal crossings occur each year. (I've seen the layers of fences at El Paso, Texas, which are much more elaborate than anything built by Hungary.) And I read a New York Times article last month projecting that if African European migration were to continue on that scale, relative to population (Latin America v Africa) then a quarter of Europeans would be African born in 25 years). Of course, the Mediterranean is wide...

The numbers are small - so far. But as migration infrastructure improves we could be on the verge of the kind of population movement that has not been seen in Europe since late Antiquity, 4th and 5th century, with similar demographic and cultural consequences. What exactly is there to stop this, at present? Frontex? The Greeks and Italians? A few thousand token deportations? A shortage of rubber boats? It would take time, maybe the rest of the century, but never in the past millennium has Europe been so open, without some strong states at the periphery keeping migrants out.
Even if Europe only had a hundred million (four year's population increase in Africa) and say a mere one million for Ireland what exactly would that mean? Proponents of unlimited migration/asylum rights should explain. My opinion is that there would be an underclass, an abolition of social welfare, a weakening of democracy, shanty towns, sweat shops. We'd start once more making the things currently made in China. Europe would thrive, in the way India thrives. But it would be very different.

But I don't think there will be migration on this scale because somewhere down the line the poor in Europe (including most people who don't own property) will see where they are heading and rebel. So we may be looking at an explosion of right wing politics, a fragmentation of the EU, razor wire on the beaches, giant detention camps in Sicily etc.
This is not going to end well. The longer it takes the governments of Europe to take control, and to come up with a viable long term strategy the harder it's going to be.

foggy_lad

The only long term strategy that is proven to work is to do as the Australians are doing and never allow the asylum seekers or migrants to settle or live in Australia.

Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe Where the most basic of facilities can be provided for all the migrants and asylum seekers until their claims are processed and they are allowed stay in that Island/country or deported.

Nodin

foggy_lad wrote: »

The only long term strategy that is proven to work is to do as the Australians are doing and never allow the asylum seekers or migrants to settle or live in Australia.

Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe Where the most basic of facilities can be provided for all the migrants and asylum seekers until their claims are processed and they are allowed stay in that Island/country or deported.

Why?

stringed theory

foggy_lad wrote: »

Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe.

Europe doesn't have many options here. It could improve existing refugee camps in the middle east, bribe Turkey and Jordan to settle them, try to co-opt gulf states and client states in Africa, but there is nowhere like Papua New Guinea where refugees can simply be diverted to. Not unless Europe wants to invade Syria or Libya to create a 'safe haven.' Not very likely, at this stage, or advisable.
The only practicable solution, in my opinion, is to detain all refugees on arrival in properly equipped camps, indefinitely if necessary, and to work from there.

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

Because some people feel that multiculturalism should not be forced upon any nation but should be a free choice?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

Why? So people stop dying at sea trying to get to Europe.

More died last night....no more die trying to get to Australia.

You support policies that result in dead babies at sea?

Judge polices on their results not their intentions....that's your first mistake.....Pretty common among lefties....We all used to think like that in our early 20s so nothing to be ashamed off but unfortunately your support for these polices is killing people.

Nodin

stringed theory wrote: »

Because some people feel that multiculturalism should not be forced upon any nation but should be a free choice?

....what does the admission of refugees have to do with multiculturalism?

stringed theory

Because they are from various Asian and African cultures and will either create an ethnic minority where none existed before or bolster an existing one.
I think it can be assumed that the great majority who arrive as refugees and who are allowed to disperse will stay in Europe permanently. It really doesn't matter if they are judged to be "genuine refugees" or economic migrants. They will stay, legally or illegally, and eventually bring in their extended families, prosper in their own terms, and multiply.

Nodin

stringed theory wrote: »

Because they are from various Asian and African cultures and will either create an ethnic minority where none existed before or bolster an existing one..

Hardly the end of the world. You realise that multiculturalism is normally some sort of policy as opposed to just having different ethnicities in the same state

stringed theory

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly the end of the world. You realise that multiculturalism is normally some sort of policy as opposed to just having different ethnicities in the same state

Multiple cultures living side by side can be a real asset depending on who they are and what controls are in place to prevent the dominant culture that attracted emigrants in the first place from being overwhelmed. This is about countries controlling immigration, instead of people traffickers and the vagaries of foreign wars.

And yeah, multiculturalism is an actual philosophy, born in the USA in it's modern form because of the absolute necessity to integrate massive preexisting minorities. Sometimes I think it's misapplied in Europe. California with a majority of Hispanics or Asians would still be California as long as the institutions survived. Ireland in the same situation would cease to make any sense.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Why? So people stop dying at sea trying to get to Europe.

More died last night....no more die trying to get to Australia.

You support policies that result in dead babies at sea?

Judge polices on their results not their intentions....that's your first mistake.....Pretty common among lefties....We all used to think like that in our early 20s so nothing to be ashamed off but unfortunately your support for these polices is killing people.

Considering how many refugees are willing to risk their lives in the crossing, it'd be very hard to dissuade them from making the journey. Remember, even as the EU made the crossing more dangerous (by replacing Italy's Mare Nostrum with the far more skeletal Operation Triton), the numbers of arrivals continued to rise.

I'm not an expert on who the migrants arriving in Australia are, but the vast majority of European arrivals are fleeing from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (and thus fleeing civil war) or are Eritrean (and fleeing a regime so oppressive, its known as the North Korea on the Red Sea)
They're fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Mediterranean despite the huge risks involved. It'd be very hard to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

stringed theory wrote: »

I think it can be assumed that the great majority who arrive as refugees and who are allowed to disperse will stay in Europe permanently. It really doesn't matter if they are judged to be "genuine refugees" or economic migrants. They will stay, legally or illegally, and eventually bring in their extended families, prosper in their own terms, and multiply.

What are you basing this on? After the Kosovo War ended, 800,000 of the 850,000 Kosovar refugees returned home within 90 days of the conflict ending. They're not fleeing poverty. If they can return home, chances are they will.

gobsh!te

Lockstep wrote: »

Considering how many refugees are willing to risk their lives in the crossing, it'd be very hard to dissuade them from making the journey.

Not really. Just copy the Australian policy. As I said, no one dies at sea trying to enter Australia anymore....they used to when the policy was the same as the current EU policy...It's pretty clear. I don't see how it cannot be.

Remember, even as the EU made the crossing more dangerous (by replacing Italy's Mare Nostrum with the far more skeletal Operation Triton), the numbers of arrivals continued to rise.

Remember the EU has not copied Australia's policy. Actually Merkel has more or less done the opposite.

Seriously, if they just use the same policy less people will die....or perhaps zero as in Australia's case.

I'm not an expert on who the migrants arriving in Australia are

But that never stopped you from holding a bias even though you understand only one side of the story?

the vast majority of European arrivals are fleeing from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (and thus fleeing civil war) or are Eritrean (and fleeing a regime so oppressive, its known as the North Korea on the Red Sea)
They're fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Mediterranean despite the huge risks involved. It'd be very hard to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

Majority of asylum seekers to Australia where from Afghanistan (and thus fleeing civil war), Iran (and fleeing a regime so oppressive) and Sri Lanka (fleeing the Sri Lankan Civil War)

They were fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Indian Ocean despite the huge risks involved. It' was very easy (as seen in the current Australian policy) to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

I recommend you please stop supporting a policy that is resulting in deaths at sea.

Lockstep

gobsh!te wrote: »

Not really. Just copy the Australian policy. As I said, no one dies at sea trying to enter Australia anymore....they used to when the policy was the same as the current EU policy...It's pretty clear. I don't see how it cannot be.

We can't just "copy the Australian policy". It's far more complicated than that.
The Australian policy relied on deterrents to migrants arriving.
We already have a major deterrent. The sheer numbers being killed in the crossing. Evidently, the refugees will come either way.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Remember the EU has not copied Australia's policy. Actually Merkel has more or less done the opposite.

Seriously, if they just use the same policy less people will die....or perhaps zero as in Australia's case.

Your argument seems to be that dissuading migrants from coming will mean we'll see less deaths. Given the vastly different reasons people are coming to Europe, I'm very sceptical it'll work here.
Can you provide any evidence for your claim beyond saying "It worked in Australia so it MUST work here"?
As mentioned above, the numbers dying at sea is a major deterrent. But even as we made the crossing more dangerous, the numbers dying continued to rise. So adopting an Australian style policy is unlikely to work.

Paul Barrett, a former secretary of Australia’s defence department, said turning back asylum-seeker vessels to Libya was far different from turning them back to Indonesia.

“One immediate difference is that when we turn back boats to Indonesia, objectionable as that policy is, we know the Indonesians aren’t going to shoot them when they come back,” he said. “If they’ve fled Iraq or Afghanistan they’ve got no rights in Indonesia, so they need to move on to a country where they can retain the benefit of the Refugee convention. “Whereas if you turn around boats that are fleeing from Libya and send them straight back to Libya you’re injecting them straight back into the danger where they’ve fled.”

source

Likewise the BBC notes the following

First, the numbers in Europe are far greater. Last year 170,000 people tried to cross the Mediterranean. EU officials believe that number could increase rapidly. Fabrice Leggeri the executive director of Frontex, the EU agency responsible for protecting Europe's external borders, told the Italian news agency Ansa that "anywhere between 500,000 to a million people" are ready to leave from Libya. It's not just a question of scale. Whereas countries such as Indonesia have the capacity to cope with returned boat people, Libya with its chaotic civil conflict, does not.

So it looks like your analogy is badly sourced. Maybe do a bit more research next time?

gobsh!te wrote: »

But that never stopped you from holding a bias even though you understand only one side of the story?

What bias? That I'm highlighting the migration issue is different in the Mediterranean and South-East Asia?

gobsh!te wrote: »

It' was very easy (as seen in the current Australian policy) to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

I recommend you please stop supporting a policy that is resulting in deaths at sea.

Once again, your entire argument is just banging on pots and shouting "BUT IT WORKED IN AUSTRALIA"
As it stands, the EU tried rescuing migrants (Mare Nostrum) and effectively leaving them to their own devices(Operation Triton)
Evidently, the refugees are so desperate they're willing to take great risks.
Poor use of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy by the way.