Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Options
Comments
-
The australian policy does not rely on "deterrents" but is centred on taking away the reason the Migrants were travelling to Australia. The sugar was taken off the table along with the milk and slice of cake. They now know that they will NEVER be allowed settle in Australia so they have gone elsewhere and that might be why so many are now arriving in Europe.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.
It is not so much about dissuading them from coming to Europe as much as letting them know that should they arrive here they will be removed once found to another location used for registering and processing migrants and deporting those economic migrants and resettling successful asylum seekers.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.
Looking for evidence or precedence for such a unique situation is ridiculous but trying out a policy which is generally accepted as being successful in Australia is surely the next step to stop people dying?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.
source
Likewise the BBC notes the following
So it looks like your analogy is badly sourced. Maybe do a bit more research next time?
What bias? That I'm highlighting the migration issue is different in the Mediterranean and South-East Asia?
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.
Europeans are too soft and too full of the NGO, Charity Live Aid crap that clouds the judgement where migration and the invasion of the poor of the third world is concerned!
It has already been shown that the money being spent in European countries per migrant would help several migrants if it was used to improve conditions in the camps where these people are "safe".0 -
Actually, it does rely on deterrents: the idea that asylum seekers will not be able to arrive in Australia. Now, if this ensures "the sugar is taken off the table", then what is watching them die? Surely this is taking the sugar off the table as you need to be alive to claim benefits.The australian policy does not rely on "deterrents" but is centred on taking away the reason the Migrants were travelling to Australia. The sugar was taken off the table along with the milk and slice of cake. They now know that they will NEVER be allowed settle in Australia so they have gone elsewhere and that might be why so many are now arriving in Europe.
Evidently, the refugees aren't coming for the sugar or cake. They're coming to beg for crumbs.It is not so much about dissuading them from coming to Europe as much as letting them know that should they arrive here they will be removed once found to another location used for registering and processing migrants and deporting those economic migrants and resettling successful asylum seekers.
If you're going to import a policy from a completely different part of the world in response to a completely different crisis, the onus is on you to show why its relevant. Evidently, the Australian situation was based on very different one to that facing Europe. As my links above show, Australia's experience is not relevant.Looking for evidence or precedence for such a unique situation is ridiculous but trying out a policy which is generally accepted as being successful in Australia is surely the next step to stop people dying?
And your source is? We were happy to leave them to die last year. But even while we did that, the numbers arriving continued to climb.Europeans are too soft and too full of the NGO, Charity Live Aid crap that clouds the judgement where migration and the invasion of the poor of the third world is concerned!
I completely agree: part of the cause of the current refugee crisis is that refugees aren't being fed properly . They were already refugees but then faced not being able to survive in countries where already denied them refugee status. Ensuring refugees are able to survive in the areas surrounding Syria ensures they are less desperate to try and come here.It has already been shown that the money being spent in European countries per migrant would help several migrants if it was used to improve conditions in the camps where these people are "safe".
However, this also highlights that they are refugees, rather than migrants (like you claim)0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22733
I think most EU governments aren't interested in ceasing to accept asylum seekers, so I can't see the Australian policy being adopted.0 -
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
You talk about evidence in your posts, but this has to be critically examined. The UNHCR get's its data from governments, mainly Italy and Greece, but all government officials do in places like Kos is to ask people where they are from. Having gone to the trouble of getting there any Arabs would be mad not to say they were Syrian, Pakistanis Afghans, sub saharan Africans Eritreans. And I believe it's easy to get a fake Syrian passport.
I am not completely denying the figures - it stands to reason there are a lot of Syrians - but what is the evidence?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.
Anyone who travels in these regions would see they are fleeing poverty, as well as violence and insecurity. Also, tariffs charged by smugglers suggest that most have gambled all their resources on this, and would have nothing if they went home. Some middle class Syrians will return if their country stabilizes, but you have to consider how dirt poor Afghanistan, Pakistan, or most of Africa is in comparison to anywhere in Europe. I have never met or heard of any ordinary person in these places who'd lived in Europe and had returned voluntarily.
Kosovo is a bad example because it's relatively easy for them to go in and out of the EU without using people smugglers. Though they may have gone home once, now they're on the move again.0 -
stringed theory wrote: »You talk about evidence in your posts, but this has to be critically examined. The UNHCR get's its data from governments, mainly Italy and Greece, but all government officials do in places like Kos is to ask people where they are from. Having gone to the trouble of getting there any Arabs would be mad not to say they were Syrian, Pakistanis Afghans, sub saharan Africans Eritreans. ,..............
Arabs do not physically resemble Afghans, sub Saharan Africans and Eritreans. Nor do they speak the same languages or dialects.0 -
Advertisement
-
This claim has appeared in the thread before so I'll respond in the same way: have you any evidence that the UNHCR is relying solely on self-declaration? I've yet to see any evidence for this.stringed theory wrote: »You talk about evidence in your posts, but this has to be critically examined. The UNHCR get's its data from governments, mainly Italy and Greece, but all government officials do in places like Kos is to ask people where they are from. Having gone to the trouble of getting there any Arabs would be mad not to say they were Syrian, Pakistanis Afghans, sub saharan Africans Eritreans. And I believe it's easy to get a fake Syrian passport.
I am not completely denying the figures - it stands to reason there are a lot of Syrians - but what is the evidence?
Likewise, Frontex's figures are slightly out of date as they don't cover October or the entirety of September but their figures have Syrians as just under half of the total refugees (including those arriving illegally from European states like Albania and Kosovo). Once you bring in Iraqis, Afghanis and Eritreans, Frontex's figures have nearly three quarters of arrivals as nationals where they have an excellent chance of being granted asylum.
If you want to argue Frontex and the UNHCR are relying on measures as inaccurate as self-declaration, that's grand but it seems unlikely that organisations that deal with such issues would do so. The onus is on you to demonstrate this.
Doubtless, some refugees will lie about where they're from but you're ignoring how different the people of each region are. The Arabs are a very divided people as evidenced by the continued failures of pan Arabism. They might have a common ethnicity but they have different forms of Arabic (which can be unintelligible) and different customs. Are you honestly saying an Omanese Arab could pass himself off as a Syrian? Ditto with the Eritreans: they're largely a Semitic people and generally taller, thinner and fairer than most Sub-Saharan Africans with completely different languages.
I don't deny that some asylum seekers will lie but it's unlikely to be on such a massive scale to skew the figures much. If this was the case, surely the numbers claiming to be Syrians would be much higher, given they have a nearly 100% success rate in being granted asylum?
Also, on the issue of passports: doubtless some fake passport bearers will be Syrian. Remember, they're fleeing an oppressive government so not everyone is likely to be able to get hold of a legal one.
According to the World Bank, Kosovo is a lower-middle income country, making it roughly equivalent to Syria and much poorer than Iraq. However, the people are fleeting war, not poverty. The Kosovars returned to a shattered and backward state, so it's unclear why Syrians, Afghanis or Iraqis would not do the same once it is safe for them to do so (Given Eritrea's political system, this is far more unlikely.stringed theory wrote: »Anyone who travels in these regions would see they are fleeing poverty, as well as violence and insecurity. Also, tariffs charged by smugglers suggest that most have gambled all their resources on this, and would have nothing if they went home. Some middle class Syrians will return if their country stabilizes, but you have to consider how dirt poor Afghanistan, Pakistan, or most of Africa is in comparison to anywhere in Europe. I have never met or heard of any ordinary person in these places who'd lived in Europe and had returned voluntarily.
Kosovo is a bad example because it's relatively easy for them to go in and out of the EU without using people smugglers. Though they may have gone home once, now they're on the move again.
For years, Africans such as Somalilandis have been returning to their country from Europe.0 -
Is there any evidence at all that the unhcr or other state agencies within each country are able to process any of the current intake in any numbers that allow these statistics to be accurate?This claim has appeared in the thread before so I'll respond in the same way: have you any evidence that the UNHCR is relying solely on self-declaration? I've yet to see any evidence for this.
Likewise, Frontex's figures are slightly out of date as they don't cover October or the entirety of September but their figures have Syrians as just under half of the total refugees (including those arriving illegally from European states like Albania and Kosovo). Once you bring in Iraqis, Afghanis and Eritreans, Frontex's figures have nearly three quarters of arrivals as nationals where they have an excellent chance of being granted asylum.
If you want to argue Frontex and the UNHCR are relying on measures as inaccurate as self-declaration, that's grand but it seems unlikely that organisations that deal with such issues would do so. The onus is on you to demonstrate this.
The answer is no, At the moment it is impossible for them to even take full details from people who are still moving around and who are mostly very reluctant to give correct details with many having destroyed their own documents or having bought fake documents. they may have started to process migrants but after taking initial self declared details it will be several months or even years before the full history of many of the migrants is discovered!
There have been news reports clearly showing people being taken off boats who have "Syria" written on their hands - just in case they forget where they came from??
Can you guarantee that the current muddled and overstretched resources in Europe are in any condition to tell the difference?Doubtless, some refugees will lie about where they're from but you're ignoring how different the people of each region are. The Arabs are a very divided people as evidenced by the continued failures of pan Arabism. They might have a common ethnicity but they have different forms of Arabic (which can be unintelligible) and different customs. Are you honestly saying an Omanese Arab could pass himself off as a Syrian? Ditto with the Eritreans: they're largely a Semitic people and generally taller, thinner and fairer than most Sub-Saharan Africans with completely different languages.
I don't deny that some asylum seekers will lie but it's unlikely to be on such a massive scale to skew the figures much. If this was the case, surely the numbers claiming to be Syrians would be much higher, given they have a nearly 100% success rate in being granted asylum?
Also, on the issue of passports: doubtless some fake passport bearers will be Syrian. Remember, they're fleeing an oppressive government so not everyone is likely to be able to get hold of a legal one.
Most are saying they will process everyone before they start to separate those with no right to asylum, and Germany have started this seperation process already with at least one "deportation" centre where the obvious economic migrants are being sent, but how long till those sent there simply refuse to go? we are already seeing people who are sent to more rural places and to holiday villages with chalets etc who refuse to leave the buses that bring them to their new accommodation because they want proper houses and apartments!
If only we could have some uncontested irrefutable evidence and guarantee from those people and organisations who are crying about how needy all these millions of people are that all these migrants are:According to the World Bank, Kosovo is a lower-middle income country, making it roughly equivalent to Syria and much poorer than Iraq. However, the people are fleeting war, not poverty. The Kosovars returned to a shattered and backward state, so it's unclear why Syrians, Afghanis or Iraqis would not do the same once it is safe for them to do so (Given Eritrea's political system, this is far more unlikely.
For years, Africans such as Somalilandis have been returning to their country from Europe.- Mostly Syrian
- Actually in need of refuge and not just fleeing a poorer life in a safe refugee camp,
- actually going to return to Syria when the conflict is resolved.
0 -
Considering the UNHCR is the UN's dedicated refugee agency, they've been dealing with such situations for decades and as such, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have some idea of how to do such things.Is there any evidence at all that the unhcr or other state agencies within each country are able to process any of the current intake in any numbers that allow these statistics to be accurate?
The answer is no, At the moment it is impossible for them to even take full details from people who are still moving around and who are mostly very reluctant to give correct details with many having destroyed their own documents or having bought fake documents. they may have started to process migrants but after taking initial self declared details it will be several months or even years before the full history of many of the migrants is discovered!
There have been news reports clearly showing people being taken off boats who have "Syria" written on their hands - just in case they forget where they came from??
I'm not sure how they process refugees or determine their nationality but the onus is on you to show their research is inaccurate.
Ditto for Frontex.
Fallacious argument thereCan you guarantee that the current muddled and overstretched resources in Europe are in any condition to tell the difference?
Once again, if you want to argue Frontex or the UNHCR are getting things wrong on a significant level, the onus is on you to prove this.
Unfounded fear-mongering. Are you honestly saying that the German security forces are incapable of removing reluctant Kosovars? They can "refuse to go" in which case they'll be forcibly deported.Most are saying they will process everyone before they start to separate those with no right to asylum, and Germany have started this seperation process already with at least one "deportation" centre where the obvious economic migrants are being sent, but how long till those sent there simply refuse to go? we are already seeing people who are sent to more rural places and to holiday villages with chalets etc who refuse to leave the buses that bring them to their new accommodation because they want proper houses and apartments!
Your post is large on conjecture and short on evidence.
The burden of proof is on people such as yourself who want to deny asylum seekers access. All European states have ratified the Refugee Convention. Those seeking asylum are entitled to have their claim processed.If only we could have some uncontested irrefutable evidence and guarantee from those people and organisations who are crying about how needy all these millions of people are that all these migrants are
If you look at the success rates for the four nationalities being discussed, they have an extremely high chance of success
They need not be Syrian: as already mentioned in the thread, around half of refugees are Syrian but there are also significant numbers of Eritreans, Iraqis and Afghanis. See above.Mostly Syrian
As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, that's not how refugee law works. It's getting fairly irritating having to constantly bring up the same points because you've either forgotten they've been addressed or are wilfully ignoring them.Actually in need of refuge and not just fleeing a poorer life in a safe refugee camp
There isn't an onus on refugees to wait in the nearest safe place: if Ireland collapsed into civil war tomorrow, would you say that only those who went to the UK are genuine refugees? What of those who claim asylum in the US as they have family there?
Syrian refugees are unable to claim asylum in the countries they're mostly sheltering in. They can't claim refugee status in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon or Iraq so they're perfectly entitled to claim asylum elsewhere.
No such obligation exists under international law. So it would have no bearing on how states process the refugees.actually going to return to Syria when the conflict is resolved.0 -
They have never had to deal with such an invasion where migrants refuse offers of refuge in some countries demanding to be taken to what they see as richer pickings.Considering the UNHCR is the UN's dedicated refugee agency, they've been dealing with such situations for decades and as such, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have some idea of how to do such things.
I'm not sure how they process refugees or determine their nationality but the onus is on you to show their research is inaccurate.
Ditto for Frontex.
Fallacious argument there
Once again, if you want to argue Frontex or the UNHCR are getting things wrong on a significant level, the onus is on you to prove this.
It is clear to all that want to see what is happenning that there are serious problems in Europe and that the organisations tasked with keeping track are unable to do so when we consider that even local organisations and authorities are unable to provide proper figures.
I am saying that I sincerely hope all those with the same worries and concerns as myself are eventually proved very wrong. If not then Europe is in serious trouble.
Unfounded fear-mongering. Are you honestly saying that the German security forces are incapable of removing reluctant Kosovars? They can "refuse to go" in which case they'll be forcibly deported.
Your post is large on conjecture and short on evidence.
I fully support all asylum regardless of where it is sought and I even disagree with the whole Australian situation BUT They had to do something to save lives and in my opinion they did the only thing that would stop people endangering themselves.The burden of proof is on people such as yourself who want to deny asylum seekers access. All European states have ratified the Refugee Convention. Those seeking asylum are entitled to have their claim processed.
If you look at the success rates for the four nationalities being discussed, they have an extremely high chance of success
They need not be Syrian: as already mentioned in the thread, around half of refugees are Syrian but there are also significant numbers of Eritreans, Iraqis and Afghanis. See above.
As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, that's not how refugee law works. It's getting fairly irritating having to constantly bring up the same points because you've either forgotten they've been addressed or are wilfully ignoring them.
There isn't an onus on refugees to wait in the nearest safe place: if Ireland collapsed into civil war tomorrow, would you say that only those who went to the UK are genuine refugees? What of those who claim asylum in the US as they have family there?
Syrian refugees are unable to claim asylum in the countries they're mostly sheltering in. They can't claim refugee status in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon or Iraq so they're perfectly entitled to claim asylum elsewhere.
No such obligation exists under international law. So it would have no bearing on how states process the refugees.
As for Europe, we have no numbers on how many of the current invasion influx of migrants have sought asylum so far or indeed how many have even presented for to register in any way in whatever country(Germany) they eventually decide to stay in.
It will be very interesting to see how these people are processed and how many are in fact economic migrants and how many are even Syrians!
People are dying in their hundreds every week and for the last few years Europe has sat on its hands with its thumbs up its own arse mumbling nonsense like some unfortunate mental patient while watching this catastrophe unfold!
Lets be honest and say they are doing the same as they did when a million were being murdered in Bosnia and when millions were slaughtered in Rwanda.
What they should have do and what they should be doing right now is to stop people taking to the water!
The only way to stop this is to deny all migrants entry to Europe until their applications have been received and processed unless they are fully documented Syrians or from other areas where asylum applications are being accepted. All others get put into detention centres on the periphery or outside Europe until their claims are properly assessed investigated and allowed or denied.0 -
We must also accept that most African/Indian/Afghani/Iranian etc Migrants have travelled through several safe countries where they can seek refuge, they have no need of Asylum in Europe.0
-
Advertisement
-
Have they not? This isn't the first migration crisis the UNHCR has seen. It's a migration crisis of course but not the first of its kind.They have never had to deal with such an invasion where migrants refuse offers of refuge in some countries demanding to be taken to what they see as richer pickings.
They have provided proper figures and both Frontex and the UNHCR have similar results to show they are likely accurate.It is clear to all that want to see what is happenning that there are serious problems in Europe and that the organisations tasked with keeping track are unable to do so when we consider that even local organisations and authorities are unable to provide proper figures.
I am saying that I sincerely hope all those with the same worries and concerns as myself are eventually proved very wrong. If not then Europe is in serious trouble.
Don't dismiss an organisation's findings just because you dislike them. If you can prove they're inaccurate or wrong feel free but you cannot just appeal to ignorance to get around them.
The Australian model was doubtless effective for Australia and the situation it found itself in. However, this is no evidence it is applicable to the European refugee crisis.I fully support all asylum regardless of where it is sought and I even disagree with the whole Australian situation BUT They had to do something to save lives and in my opinion they did the only thing that would stop people endangering themselves.
Agreed but given there are clearly large numbers coming from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq, it'd be dishonest to assume that most asylum seekers are fraudulent. This is an argument to speed up the asylum process and ensure refugees are evenly distributed across the EU.As for Europe, we have no numbers on how many of the current invasion influx of migrants have sought asylum so far or indeed how many have even presented for to register in any way in whatever country(Germany) they eventually decide to stay in.
It will be very interesting to see how these people are processed and how many are in fact economic migrants and how many are even Syrians!
Full agree.People are dying in their hundreds every week and for the last few years Europe has sat on its hands with its thumbs up its own arse mumbling nonsense like some unfortunate mental patient while watching this catastrophe unfold!
Lets be honest and say they are doing the same as they did when a million were being murdered in Bosnia and when millions were slaughtered in Rwanda.
This is unlikely to happen given the sheer numbers arriving. I'm not sure what having holding centres outside of Europe will achieve. There is certainly a case to be made for processing centres in North Africa or the Middle East to ensure refugees will not make the journey but it's unclear how effective this could be or if they could cope with the numbers involved, especially as refugee applications take so long. A Syrian refugee is unlikely to hang around Turkey for a year while his claim is being processed when he is unable to work and therefore cannot survive.What they should have do and what they should be doing right now is to stop people taking to the water!
The only way to stop this is to deny all migrants entry to Europe until their applications have been received and processed unless they are fully documented Syrians or from other areas where asylum applications are being accepted. All others get put into detention centres on the periphery or outside Europe until their claims are properly assessed investigated and allowed or denied.0 -
We must also accept that most African/Indian/Afghani/Iranian etc Migrants have travelled through several safe countries where they can seek refuge, they have no need of Asylum in Europe.
Once again, there is no such rule under international law. A refugee does not need to head to the nearest safe place. If their refugee claim is valid they're entitled to head wherever they can to start a new life.
Take a Jew who fled to the US to escape the Holocaust. Seeing as they would have passed through other safe countries to arrive there, would this make not refugees in your eyes?
What about the Irish who fled to the US during the famine. MAny of them boarded ships to Liverpool to get a boat to the US. Surely by your logic, they should have stayed in the UK as it was safe, and any move to the US meant they were merely economic migrants?0 -
This is the only instance of such numbers on a mass migration not seen in the lifetimes of any living person.Have they not? This isn't the first migration crisis the UNHCR has seen. It's a migration crisis of course but not the first of its kind.
They have provided proper figures and both Frontex and the UNHCR have similar results to show they are likely accurate.
Don't dismiss an organisation's findings just because you dislike them. If you can prove they're inaccurate or wrong feel free but you cannot just appeal to ignorance to get around them.
It has worked very well in Australia so there is no evidence that it will not work just as well for Europe.The Australian model was doubtless effective for Australia and the situation it found itself in. However, this is no evidence it is applicable to the European refugee crisis.
We all know that most who are Syrians will be entitled to claim Asylum but the problem we have at the moment in Europe is there is no idea who is Syrian as no documentation is held by most presenting and many are not presenting for processing, many are doing what similar migrants have done in the UK and vanishing into the underworld of illegal workshops and fraudulent documents etc. people are entering Europe and their identity can not be verified.
Agreed but given there are clearly large numbers coming from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq, it'd be dishonest to assume that most asylum seekers are fraudulent. This is an argument to speed up the asylum process and ensure refugees are evenly distributed across the EU.
As for the distribution across Europe I disagree with any Quotas and think that Ireland should stick to the refugee program which we have been a part of and was working very well.
As it stands the minister has stated that our government staff out in the camps and NGO's are finding it very hard to find suitable canditates for the 4,000 we have agreed to accept.
Why did none of the media parasites who are currently salivating over pictures of dead children not have any interest in the pictures of whole villages populations in Bosnia being shot and buried in shallow pits or the pictures of villages in Rwanda showing men women and children lying on the ground in pools of dried blood where they were hacked to death?
Full agree.
Is is some sort of racism that they only want to champion the cause of those closer to Europe or those from Syria or maybe its a Muslim/Islam thing?
Something has to happen BE DONE by some countries whose leaders have the balls to do it!
This is unlikely to happen given the sheer numbers arriving.
Most boat migrants have already spent several years in safe countries. if they want to leave that place then they should have no right to asylum in Europe!I'm not sure what having holding centres outside of Europe will achieve. There is certainly a case to be made for processing centres in North Africa or the Middle East to ensure refugees will not make the journey but it's unclear how effective this could be or if they could cope with the numbers involved, especially as refugee applications take so long. A Syrian refugee is unlikely to hang around Turkey for a year while his claim is being processed when he is unable to work and therefore cannot survive.0 -
Is it? Have you a source for this?This is the only instance of such numbers on a mass migration not seen in the lifetimes of any living person.
Millions of Kurds were displaced in 1991, likewise, millions were displaced by the Bosnian wars.
Again, you're arguing from an appeal to ignorance.It has worked very well in Australia so there is no evidence that it will not work just as well for Europe.
The situation in Australia was vastly different to that facing Europe as evidenced earlier in this thread. There's no evidence that it would be as effective given the different numbers involved and reasons for arrivals.
Source? I don't deny this happens but I'm sceptical it's on a scale as large as you're claiming.We all know that most who are Syrians will be entitled to claim Asylum but the problem we have at the moment in Europe is there is no idea who is Syrian as no documentation is held by most presenting and many are not presenting for processing, many are doing what similar migrants have done in the UK and vanishing into the underworld of illegal workshops and fraudulent documents etc. people are entering Europe and their identity can not be verified.
What's your issue with a quota system? Why should Mediterranean states shoulder the burden when its not their fault? If they can't cope, they'll simply let refugees through to freely travel through the EU.As for the distribution across Europe I disagree with any Quotas and think that Ireland should stick to the refugee program which we have been a part of and was working very well.
Source?As it stands the minister has stated that our government staff out in the camps and NGO's are finding it very hard to find suitable canditates for the 4,000 we have agreed to accept.
To be fair, there was widespread public outrage over Bosnia and Rwanda (particularly Srebrenica) However, there was little government action as it was not in our government's interests to do so. It was only when NATO started to look impotent that a strong stance was taken against the Bosnian Serbs.Why did none of the media parasites who are currently salivating over pictures of dead children not have any interest in the pictures of whole villages populations in Bosnia being shot and buried in shallow pits or the pictures of villages in Rwanda showing men women and children lying on the ground in pools of dried blood where they were hacked to death?
To be fair, the Bosniaks are Muslim too.Is is some sort of racism that they only want to champion the cause of those closer to Europe or those from Syria or maybe its a Muslim/Islam thing?
Once again, that's not how refugee law works. They were unable to claim asylum in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan or Iraq so they're perfectly entitled to seek asylum elsewhere. Even if they were able to claim asylum in those countries, there's no obligation that you need to claim it in the nearest safe country. Refugees can apply anywhere they can.Something has to happen BE DONE by some countries whose leaders have the balls to do it!
Most boat migrants have already spent several years in safe countries. if they want to leave that place then they should have no right to asylum in Europe!0 -
It is hard to argue against Lockstep who is only expressing the view of the UN, all respectable governments (at least in public), and elite groups in business, the media, religion and the arts. This view, that we have a moral duty to accept ALL refugees who happen to turn up, and to let them settle and become citizens etc., is a wonderful example of unconditional idealism born out of the events of world war 2. I argue that it is not tenable under pressure, and that it has not yet been put to a serious test.
As I pointed out in my first post, Africa is expected to have a population of 4 billion in the next century, and in the years ahead there are likely to be many more wars and famines, and hundreds of millions of refugees. Are we supposed to take them all?
Our idealism should not be tested to breaking point. And it will break, eventually, if UN rules are not modified (some chance!) or disregarded. What happens then to our culture of tolerance is anyone's guess. (Who remembers Walter Rathenau, a Jew who became Germany's foreign minister in 1922? The public outcry against his assassination initially strengthened the Weimar Republic. Things change, that's all I mean.)0 -
Considering the vast numbers of refugees appearing directly after World War II, it's hardly starry eyed idealism. The states were fully aware of this when the Refugee Convention was signed in 1951.stringed theory wrote: »It is hard to argue against Lockstep who is only expressing the view of the UN, all respectable governments (at least in public), and elite groups in business, the media, religion and the arts. This view, that we have a moral duty to accept ALL refugees who happen to turn up, and to let them settle and become citizens etc., is a wonderful example of unconditional idealism born out of the events of world war 2. I argue that it is not tenable under pressure, and that it has not yet been put to a serious test.
You might dislike the laws relating to refugees but that's for states to decide.
Scaremongering.stringed theory wrote: »As I pointed out in my first post, Africa is expected to have a population of 4 billion in the next century, and in the years ahead there are likely to be many more wars and famines, and hundreds of millions of refugees. Are we supposed to take them all?
Our idealism should not be tested to breaking point. And it will break, eventually, if UN rules are not modified (some chance!) or disregarded. What happens then to our culture of tolerance is anyone's guess. (Who remembers Walter Rathenau, a Jew who became Germany's foreign minister in 1922? The public outcry against his assassination initially strengthened the Weimar Republic. Things change, that's all I mean.)
Africa will have a rising population but they won't all (or even mostly) be coming to Europe. Generally, refugees stay near where they've fled from. Just look at the Syrian conflict where millions of refugees fled to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. And that's with a conflict that's very geographically close to Europe.0 -
Scaremongering.
Africa will have a rising population but they won't all (or even mostly) be coming to Europe. Generally, refugees stay near where they've fled from. Just look at the Syrian conflict where millions of refugees fled to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. And that's with a conflict that's very geographically close to Europe.
The current situation developing was called unrealistic scare mongering by many idealists and look how things have changed even in the last couple of weeks with the changes in attitude in Germany and Austria0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »The current situation developing was called unrealistic scare mongering by many idealists and look how things have changed even in the last couple of weeks with the changes in attitude in Germany and Austria
When was the current situation developing called scaremongering? At any rate, the current refugee crisis, as bad as it is, is nowhere near what Stringed Theory is warning against. The chances of hundreds of millions of African refugees coming here is extremely slim, unless you want to drag it out over an extremely long timeframe.0 -
When was the current situation developing called scaremongering? At any rate, the current refugee crisis, as bad as it is, is nowhere near what Stringed Theory is warning against. The chances of hundreds of millions of African refugees coming here is extremely slim, unless you want to drag it out over an extremely long timeframe.
What would you call an extremely long timeframe ?
There are already regions of Africa that are fast becoming uninhabitable, and for example in Banglades millions have already moved to the north of the country and to neighbouring countries due to environmental issues.
If estimates are correct it could all reach it's peak by 2050, according to several reports by the IPCC, UNESCO, UNHRC, Council of Europe,...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_migrant#Enumeration
That may seem long for us, but our children/grandchildren will have to deal with it. Not something I'm really comfortable with.0 -
What would you call an extremely long timeframe ?
There are already regions of Africa that are fast becoming uninhabitable, and for example in Banglades millions have already moved to the north of the country and to neighbouring countries due to environmental issues.
If estimates are correct it could all happen by 2100. That may seem long for us, but our grandchildren will have to deal with it. Not something I'm really comfortable with.
Africa's population isn't predicted to rise to 4 billion until 2100 at the earliest. Considering Africa's vast mineral resources, there's no need to immediately assume that many will flock to us as refugees. This is an argument for greater development in Africa and to ensure good governance rather than axing existing refugee law.
Are you referring to Bangladesh (seeing as I've never heard of a Bangaldes).
If so, Bangladeshi refugees number in the tens of thousands rather than millions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Africa's population isn't predicted to rise to 4 billion until 2100 at the earliest. Considering Africa's vast mineral resources, there's no need to immediately assume that many will flock to us as refugees. This is an argument for greater development in Africa and to ensure good governance rather than axing existing refugee law.
Are you referring to Bangladesh (seeing as I've never heard of a Bangaldes).
If so, Bangladeshi refugees number in the tens of thousands rather than millions.
Yeah, Bangladesh, no idea why my auto correct changed it to a non-existing word :P
The link you provided says that there are around 30.000 people from Bangladesh itself at risk, but over 200.000 in total (including non-natives).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/14/us-bangladesh-climate-islands-idUSDHA23447920080414#0evimXRg50c0HypK.97
This shows that the problem is a lot worse.
I'm not sure why you are bringing mineral resources in it. If entire coastal regions become flooded and crops fail the people won't stay there just because there may be some diamonds or cobalt in the ground.
The Stern Report is pretty clear about the possible impact on Africa.
http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf0 -
Considering the vast numbers of refugees appearing directly after World War II, it's hardly starry eyed idealism. The states were fully aware of this when the Refugee Convention was signed in 1951.
You might dislike the laws relating to refugees but that's for states to decide.
The convention was at first limited to European refugees and was indeed a highly practical matter of rebuilding, and without this inter European solidarity it is hard to see how the EU could have evolved.
Today, however, we usually see little more than moral posturing and tokenism. If the spirit of the convention is to be taken at face value then we should airlift large numbers of refugees directly from trouble spots. The only example I can think of is Israel airlifting Ethiopian Jews. Quite a special case. Which points to the problem. We like so much to display our moral righteousness, but when put to the test we usually only help strangers we are are culturally close to, or who we can't get rid of.
So why don't the Italians do the decent thing and negotiate with the Libyans to start a ferry service? Logical, cheaper than the current naval exercise, and vastly more humane to the refugees. Silly question.Scaremongering. Africa will have a rising population but they won't all (or even mostly) be coming to Europe..
It's scaremongering to suggest that about 3% of the projected population increase might come to Europe?
Which reminds me of an essential component in the psyche of the unconditional idealist. Denial.0 -
Given the Refugee Convention came into effect 9 years after World War II, the European refugee crisis was largely settled. However, it had shown the world that refugee crisis need to be addressed and refugees cannot just be ignored. Remember refugees post grave threats to instability. This was a major reason why India went to war with Pakistan in 1971 and NATO established no-fly zones in Northern Iraq in 1991. The flood of refugees was destabilising the region.stringed theory wrote: »The convention was at first limited to European refugees and was indeed a highly practical matter of rebuilding, and without this inter European solidarity it is hard to see how the EU could have evolved.
Today, however, we usually see little more than moral posturing and tokenism. If the spirit of the convention is to be taken at face value then we should airlift large numbers of refugees directly from trouble spots. The only example I can think of is Israel airlifting Ethiopian Jews. Quite a special case. Which points to the problem. We like so much to display our moral righteousness, but when put to the test we usually only help strangers we are are culturally close to, or who we can't get rid of.
So why don't the Italians do the decent thing and negotiate with the Libyans to start a ferry service? Logical, cheaper than the current naval exercise, and vastly more humane to the refugees. Silly question.
Noone is saying we have an obligation to swoop in and rescue refugees from trouble spots. States have generally agreed on a need to provide relief to refugees who nearly always congregate in nearby states, hence why Syrian refugees in the Middle East are measured in the millions but by the thousands in Europe. However, should a refugee manage to reach a safe country which has signed the Refugee Convention, they are entitled to claim asylum there.
If you're saying we shouldn't take in refugees, I'd be interested in seeing your alternative.
3% where on earth are you getting that figure from?stringed theory wrote: »It's scaremongering to suggest that about 3% of the projected population increase might come to Europe?
Which reminds me of an essential component in the psyche of the unconditional idealist. Denial.
Even with endemic instability in the Middle East, a fraction of 1% have reached Europe this year, and that's with Europe being just a few hundred kilometres away.
The idea that 3% of Africa's entire 2100 population would be
A) displaced and
would reach Europe
is highly unlikely0 -
Fair enough! I thought there might be an African region called Banglades which I just hadn't heard of :pac:Yeah, Bangladesh, no idea why my auto correct changed it to a non-existing word :P
Indeed, but it's hardly the case that Bangladesh has millions of displaced persons, as you claimed in your original post.The link you provided says that there are around 30.000 people from Bangladesh itself at risk, but over 200.000 in total (including non-natives).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/14/us-bangladesh-climate-islands-idUSDHA23447920080414#0evimXRg50c0HypK.97
This shows that the problem is a lot worse.
Global warming is certainly an issue but what happens if we simply set up walls and refuse refugees entry? Expect major destabilisation at the borders as refugees riot, try to force entry and do anything they can to reach safety.
Turkey refused Iraqi Kurdish refugees entry in 1991, but NATO realised that millions of Kurdish refugees on the border would be a geopolitical disaster and intervened in Iraq to stop this.I'm not sure why you are bringing mineral resources in it. If entire coastal regions become flooded and crops fail the people won't stay there just because there may be some diamonds or cobalt in the ground.
The Stern Report is pretty clear about the possible impact on Africa.
http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf
The big risk to Africa from global warming is crop failures and drought: the impact of flooding is very low. As the report highlights.
There is certainly an argument for greater support to be given to Africa (technological and agricultural aid especially) but the risk of flooding in Africa isn't great.0 -
Noone is saying we have an obligation to swoop in and rescue refugees from trouble spots.
But why not? That would obviously be the best thing for them, except that, in reality, States seek to limit the number of refugees they accept by letting them risk their lives in coming here. So they can have their moral stance, they can obey the letter of the UN convention, and do as little as possible. I think an honest quota, or cap, or downright refusal would be better than a toll in drownings
The year has not gone according to plan in Germany, obviously, or do you think ordinary Germans want to receive up to a million refugees? Their government is caught in a trap created by its own rhetoric and at some point will start turning refugees away, irrespective of the consequences. But saying that governments think in the short term and are morally duplicitous is nothing new.
And since you ask, I think the issues of asylum and migration should be completely decoupled and that virtually all refugees should be accommodated close to home, well looked after - much better than at present - and with vigorous efforts made to resolve conflicts in their homelands. I am in favor of emigration of suitable Asians and Africans, but anyone simply landing on a beach should be detained and sent back to a camp.3% where on earth are you getting that figure from?
So, not counting the internally displaced, about 3 million Syrians, or 13%, have left their country over four years. This year alone, refugees may increase Germany's population by over 1%. Talking about 3% is not out of bounds, over a long enough time span.
My figure of 3% of Africa's population increase (over, say, 50 years?) I chose to tie in with the suggestion that Europe could receive over 100 million (or one million for Ireland) from both Asia and Africa.
There is no "evidence." It hasn't happened. But you should be aware that the world is getting smaller, conflicts are unending, and that 50 years is not a long period of time - I expect you are rather young - and that you have to be imaginative to predict new types of RISK. I'm not trying to predict FACT - and to be in a position to suggest measures to reduce it.0 -
http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/muslim-cleric-claims-irish-muslim-children-are-being-taught-%E2%80%98hatred-of-other-communities%E2%80%99/ar-CC2nCG
When will Ireland have a fast track system ??
I wonder the fate of those failed asylum seekers .I suspect they will disperse and make another claim in an EU country as the Germans will not release the data on them . The responce take our left overs as you did not agree on a quota.0 -
No because states don't have any obligation to swoop in and airlift people out of a trouble zone. Obviously it would be great if they did but given how utterly expensive such a system (military operations are extremely costly) would be, it's completely impractical.stringed theory wrote: »But why not? That would obviously be the best thing for them, except that, in reality, States seek to limit the number of refugees they accept by letting them risk their lives in coming here. So they can have their moral stance, they can obey the letter of the UN convention, and do as little as possible. I think an honest quota, or cap, or downright refusal would be better than a toll in drownings
You say we should have caps and quotas on refugees. What happens to those left over after the quota is filled? Do we just abandon them on the borders?
The refugees were coming anyway. Remember, Germany announced its asylum proposal in September, at which point arrivals numbered hundreds of thousands, at a rate which had exponentially been climbing for months.stringed theory wrote: »The year has not gone according to plan in Germany, obviously, or do you think ordinary Germans want to receive up to a million refugees? Their government is caught in a trap created by its own rhetoric and at some point will start turning refugees away, irrespective of the consequences. But saying that governments think in the short term and are morally duplicitous is nothing new.
NIMBYISM at its finest: Very nice in theory, impossible in practice. Refugees generally remain near where they've fled from (hence why the vast majority of Syrian refugees are in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan) but why should say, Jordan, be expected to take in refugees while France shouldn't?stringed theory wrote: »And since you ask, I think the issues of asylum and migration should be completely decoupled and that virtually all refugees should be accommodated close to home, well looked after - much better than at present - and with vigorous efforts made to resolve conflicts in their homelands. I am in favor of emigration of suitable Asians and Africans, but anyone simply landing on a beach should be detained and sent back to a camp.
Remember, refugees have a knock on effect if there's too many of them in an area, with demand outstripping supply, and raising rates for food and rent. Expecting their neighbors to bear the brunt of refugee crisis is not going to be popular for these countries. It's a nice idea to take Homer's line and say "Can't Someone Else Do It?" but unfortunately, they'll come anyway and our choice is to watch them die, work on a sensible proposal or lock them out and watch them destabilise our borders.
At any rate, the issues of migration and asylum are already seperate. Even as Germany is taking in Syrians and Iraqis, it's deporting Kosovars and Albanians.
Classic logical fallacystringed theory wrote: »So, not counting the internally displaced, about 3 million Syrians, or 13%, have left their country over four years. This year alone, refugees may increase Germany's population by over 1%. Talking about 3% is not out of bounds, over a long enough time span.
Firstly, you're taking refugees from a single war-torn country and trying to compare their numbers to an entire cast continent.
Greek unemployment is 25%, does this mean we should predict the Eurozone will see 25% unemployment across the board? Of course not. Because you're comparing one small country to an entire region. As such, a completely absurd comparison to make.
At any rate, 13% of Syrians have not fled to Europe. Assuming the UNHCR's figures are accurate, Syrian refugees arriving in Europe this year amount to just over 400,000 Which is 1.75% of Syria's total population. So even with Syria's close proximity and high level of displacement, the amount coming to Europe remains low.
As such, estimating 3% of Africans would come to Europe is a wild exaggeration.
Evidently your figure was plucked out of thin air. I can't guess how many refugees we'll see in Europe but for the reasons above, the likelihood of it reaching 3% of Africa's population is at best, hyperbolic.stringed theory wrote: »My figure of 3% of Africa's population increase (over, say, 50 years?) I chose to tie in with the suggestion that Europe could receive over 100 million (or one million for Ireland) from both Asia and Africa.
I would have thought that groundless conjecture and hyperbolic fears were a mark of youth rather than maturity.stringed theory wrote: »There is no "evidence." It hasn't happened. But you should be aware that the world is getting smaller, conflicts are unending, and that 50 years is not a long period of time - I expect you are rather young - and that you have to be imaginative to predict new types of RISK. I'm not trying to predict FACT - and to be in a position to suggest measures to reduce it.
At any rate, I'm not sure what my age has to do with it. I'm in my late 20s, am doing a PhD on international law and previously worked for a Middle eastern NGO. I have no problem if someone wants to debate my points with me but would hope they can engage with my points instead of going for ad-hominems or snipes at my perceived age.0 -
No because states don't have any obligation to swoop in and airlift people out of a trouble zone..
A purely legalistic response that ignores the fact that laws have an underlying moral purpose.Obviously it would be great if they did but given how utterly expensive such a system (military operations are extremely costly) would be, it's completely impractical...
No. Refugees could easily be brought by bus to Europe directly from the Syrian border. And I've already suggested a ferry service from Libya.
The reason these things don't happen is because European states do not in reality want these refugees, but to maintain their moral posturing while hiding behind legalisms. It's easy for a politician to talk about accepting "unlimited numbers" when to get here, refugees have to risk drowning.
Can't you see the irrationality and moral duplicity here?You say we should have caps and quotas on refugees. What happens to those left over after the quota is filled? Do we just abandon them on the borders?
What happens to those refugees who can't afford the trip? I suspect many of the most deserving never even get to leave Syria. What I would like is a plan of action to help the maximum number by investing in camps near the border, helping those trapped, maybe even creating safe havens by military action (with UN approval of course). I think that money spent in Turkey, Jordan etc. would go much further than if used to build apartment blocks in Europe, or teach refugees German or Swedish or whatever. What we need is a way of handling refugees that is sustainable. I don't think what's happening now is sustainable.NIMBYISM at its finest:
Not at all. I don't mind some in my back yard, I just don't want large numbers of refugees in Ireland who have zero interest in the place or it's culture, people who a year ago probably couldn't have found it on a map.why should say, Jordan, be expected to take in refugees while France shouldn't?
Because of their cultural similarity to Jordanians. Because they can easily go home. Because it's unfair letting a random selection go and transform their lives in France (because they can pay people smugglers) while keeping the rest in Jordan. Because keeping all of them in Jordan would focus attention on what needs to be done - in terms of serious money - in both Jordan and Syria.
Obviously, I think the culture of our European states is something that matters, and should not be indefinitely diluted.
You miss the point entirely by not taking a broader view of the problem, while ignoring my suggested time span of 50 years.
Of course the figures are not directly comparable, as statistics. But if you accept that human nature is the same everywhere, and over time, then knowledge relating to behaviour can be applied to many different situations. For example, in an earlier post I referred to the US Mexico border as a good example of mass migration without a war going on. Totally different situation, you might say, but it's not.
So talking about Syria, we are more or less agreed about what can happen over a mere four years. Looking at Africa, it is reasonable to assume a continuing series of wars and famines, as in the past 50 years. and this against a background of steeply rising population, and a much greater awareness of the possibilities of migration - basically because of what is happening now
That one person's estimation of future risk can be another person's wild exaggeration is nothing new, and depends on one's personal belief system as much as anything.
But saying I predicted that 3% of Africa's 2100 population will in fact make it to Europe is untrue. What I said was that a possibility of mass migration of this magnitude exists. (You admit you don't know, yet you say 3% is hyperbolic. On what grounds?)
And if every year is like this year from now on, and if governments continually fail to be in control, then it will cause major and unwelcome political change.
Governments need to take control by creating sustainable policies.0 -
stringed theory wrote: »And if every year is like this year from now on, and if governments continually fail to be in control, then it will cause major and unwelcome political change.
Governments need to take control by creating sustainable policies.
Very interesting thread. Just want to comment that I'm unsure about this statement. People who are arguing for all this to continue as-is are certainly not fools or uneducated, far from it (see Lockstep's cv above) so "major political" (and societal) changes must not be unwelcome for them0 -
Advertisement
-
stringed theory wrote: »Looking at Africa, it is reasonable to assume a continuing series of wars and famines, as in the past 50 years.
Well, no, it isn't reasonable to assume that.
Had you made an assumption in 1945 that Europe would have a continuing series of continent wide wars in the decades ahead, you'd have been completely wrong. Equally assuming in 1988 that the Berlin Wall & Iron curtain would continue to be there, you'd again have been utterly wrong.
Assumptions about how Africa will perform in decades to come are about as useful as the assumptions made at the height of our property boom about our property prices continuing ever upwards are today.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement