Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

This seems to be mistaking granting refuge with immigration. These people are being taken in due to a war, not 'imported' due to some labour shortage.

It has the same effect though, and there was a pretty comprehensive media line that this was an economic opportunity.
The importing argument also holds up if you consider the Dublin Regulations, I would guess being restricted to a semi bankrupt Greece would be a major disincentive to any person with a economic goal.

kettlehead

View wrote: »

I was referring to actual refugees who make valid claims not to those who claim to be but aren't. We don't have any obligation to the latter once their claims have been fairly processed and (eventually) refused.

The problem is that only a minority of them end up getting deported. Take Ireland for example, if this weren't the case, the direct provision centres would be pretty empty.

jackofalltrades

Lockstep wrote: »

I don't need to: extremism is certainly a problem within elements of the Muslim community around the world.

Bit of a change from:

Lockstep wrote: »

There is certainly a problem with extremists within Europe's MUslim community but this isn't a global problem.

To say this is a global problem is fairly ridiculous. Unless you can prove otherwise?

Looks pretty global to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#/media/File:Islamic_terrorism_001.png
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/09/01/jihadi03_v2.jpg

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes it does: it highlights the vastly different socioeconomic positions that Muslims in the US enjoy compared to in Europe. As such, they're a lower risk.
Keep in mind I never once claimed that the "US Muslim community doesn't have a problem with extremism". Don't make stuff up please. I clearly stated

You said that there is "a problem with extremists within Europe's MUslim community but this isn't a global problem."
You then quoted a section from an opinion peace from vox.com.
The implication of this, as I saw it, was that extremism is not an issue for the Muslim community in the US.
So I'm not making thing up, I'm just trying to interpret your posts.

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It has the same effect though, and there was a pretty comprehensive media line that this was an economic opportunity.
The importing argument also holds up if you consider the Dublin Regulations, I would guess being restricted to a semi bankrupt Greece would be a major disincentive to any person with a economic goal.

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

Restricting the refugees to where they arrive is not in anyway workable, regardless of the state of that countries economy. The states aren't large enough to support that size of an influx. The sensible thing to do is to spread them out amongst member states. One might argue with Ms Merkels specific actions, but the general notion was a sound one.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

Restricting the refugees to where they arrive is not in anyway workable, regardless of the state of that countries economy. The states aren't large enough to support that size of an influx. The sensible thing to do is to spread them out amongst member states. One might argue with Ms Merkels specific actions, but the general notion was a sound one.

Is it or is it a massive pull factor? Remember we just have to fulfil the minimum of UN and EU rules, even morally this makes sense as Turkey is a fairly safe country (yes I know about Turkeys exemptions)there is not immediate risk to life unless your attending rallies Erdogan doesn't like.
Turkey needs to be put in its place, at the minute we are rewarding a leader who has made the war and the refugee crisis worse.
There is plenty of options that don't involve defacto open door policies, look at the graphs this civil war didn't start this spring other factors are at play.


Anyway this is all aside the point, Lockstep makes the point about Islamic extremism not being an issue in the USA due to wealth integration education etc, fair to point out that by this metric this crisis going to cause major issues.

kettlehead

Nodin wrote: »

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

Restricting the refugees to where they arrive is not in anyway workable, regardless of the state of that countries economy. The states aren't large enough to support that size of an influx. The sensible thing to do is to spread them out amongst member states. One might argue with Ms Merkels specific actions, but the general notion was a sound one.

The want to go to Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK(which does not want them). Denmark and Norway just seriously tightened up their asylum regulations and benefits. They do not want to come to Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia(as seen by the lack of them claiming asylum when passing through). Now, what do you think will happen when you relocate them to less prosperous Schengen states? They will leave and venture towards the aforementioned more prosperous ones. The whole quota scheme and spreading them out evenly is neither sound in practice nor theory. It ignores the economic pull factor in these people making the trek from camps in Jordan, Turkey etc. They didn't cross the med to live in some small town in Eastern or Central Europe making low wages and for pittance in welfare.


Germany and Sweden announced to the world that they would take all Syrian refugees with no limits. A lot of other nationalities decided to chance their arms too. Hundreds of thousands will be sleeping in tents soon in both countries. This is entirely their fault for announcing the houseparty on social media!

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Circa 20% of the "refugees" are Syrian or claim to be. This crisis would have occurred even with the Syrian civil war.

Have you a source for your claim that only 20% are Syrian then? Presumably you're going by the Eurostat figures but these predate the crisis and are not very relevant.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So what your saying is that it might be a good idea not to import a very substantial group of Muslims who are already poor and poorly skilled .Syria had a fairly educated population for a middle eastern country, that actually doesnt mean that much,as the current cost estimates for Germany suggest (and this is mainstream media not right wing fringe), despite every refugee interviewed by the Guardian is a Engineer :-\

This largely depends on how the EU approaches the refugee crisis. On the whole, the refugee crisis is having a small but positive impact on economic growth.

Lockstep

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Bit of a change from:


Looks pretty global to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#/media/File:Islamic_terrorism_001.png
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/09/01/jihadi03_v2.jpg


You said that there is "a problem with extremists within Europe's MUslim community but this isn't a global problem."
You then quoted a section from an opinion peace from vox.com.
The implication of this, as I saw it, was that extremism is not an issue for the Muslim community in the US.
So I'm not making thing up, I'm just trying to interpret your posts.

Actually, fair point: bad use of words on my part. There is certainly a global problem in relation to Muslims from across the globe taking part in Jihadism. However, the degree that it is a problem varies hugely by country. This is exactly what the Vox article was highlighting. US Muslims are much better integrated than their European counterparts. This isn't to say that the US Muslim community is devoid of extremists: I certainly never argued this so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My post stated that US Muslims aren't at much risk from extremism: nowhere did I say they were no risk.

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

This largely depends on how the EU approaches the refugee crisis. On the whole, the refugee crisis is having a small but positive impact on economic growth.

On phone so will be short

1)It will increase economic growth, any government spending does, so would building a 10 kilometer high statue of Merkel, not sustainable though

2)Studies show non EU migrants are actually a net drain, what they have done here is look at individual migrants and conveniently leave out family re-unification of older and non economically active persons. Quite sneaky really (always challange reports ;-) )

3) Economic growth isnt everything if its built on screwing your own working class citizens, already calls to reduce minimum wage in Germany (linked too earlier).Non EU migration has negative effect on bottom 5%., Goldmann Sachs (Southerland) want it so.must be bad. (when the vampire squid and the liberal left are agreeing its a clear sign that its no longer about ordinary citizens interests)

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

The want to go to (..........)houseparty on social media!

Nobody said it was be easy, but the fact stands that ditching them all on border states was unsustainable.

RDM_83Again wrote:

Is it or is it a massive pull factor? Remember we just have to fulfil the
minimum of UN and EU rules, even morally this makes sense as Turkey is a fairly safe country (yes I know about Turkeys exemptions)there is not immediate risk to life unless your attending rallies Erdogan doesn't like.

Or you sing a song in Kurdish, say something against him, object to him bumping off your relations etc. You can stay there entirely safely, provided nobody decides to get rid of you literally or otherwise, as you have virtually no rights.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

On phone so will be short

1)It will increase economic growth, any government spending does, so would building a 10 kilometer high statue of Merkel, not sustainable though

Except it's not just based on public spending: it's also based on the expanded workforce offered by the refugees.

Even Lebanon which has taken in vast numbers of refugees has seen refugees as an economic benefit , stimulating domestic demand and encouraging exports/

RDM_83 again wrote: »

2)Studies show non EU migrants are actually a net drain, what they have done here is look at individual migrants and conveniently leave out family re-unification of older and non economically active persons. Quite sneaky really (always challange reports ;-) )

Which studies are these? The CREAM report highlights that while overall non-EU nationals in the UK are a net drain, this is not the case for those who have arrived since 1999.The Guardian highlights that this is due to those being in the country beforehand not having their contribution factored in: only their drain.
Similarly, Denmark saw no economic problems with its refugees from the 1990s.
Likewise the head of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank note that “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment"

If you have any further studies, please provide them.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

3) Economic growth isnt everything if its built on screwing your own working class citizens, already calls to reduce minimum wage in Germany (linked too earlier).Non EU migration has negative effect on bottom 5%., Goldmann Sachs (Southerland) want it so.must be bad. (when the vampire squid and the liberal left are agreeing its a clear sign that its no longer about ordinary citizens interests)

Not quite: see the section on "taking our jobs" The net impact of migrants to the labour market is small but positive.
Also, see here which highlights the positive impact on labour markets that refugees provide.

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

It's not just public spending though:

Except it's not just based on public spending: it's also based on the expanded workforce offered by the refugees.

Even Lebanon which has taken in vast numbers of refugees has seen refugees as an economic benefit , stimulating domestic demand and encouraging exports/


Which studies are these? The CREAM report highlights that while overall non-EU nationals in the UK are a net drain, this is not the case for those who have arrived since 1999.The Guardian highlights that this is due to those being in the country beforehand not having their contribution factored in: only their drain.
Similarly, Denmark saw no economic problems with its refugees from the 1990s.
Likewise the head of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank note that “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment"

If you have any further studies, please provide them.


Not quite: see the section on "taking our jobs" The net impact of migrants to the labour market is small but positive.
Also, see here which highlights the positive impact on labour markets that refugees provide.[/quote]

Will give longer reply later but the "much adoo" Brookings link seems to describe Turkey as a model even though Nodin et al's posts will tell us inhumane dangerous and have right to flee. Is it even factually correct considering Turkey isn't taking "refugees" from Syria (e.g UN meaning). Lebanon a country that has had literal wars in camps in the past is also given.
Thats without pointing out differences between states with social safety net and 1st world economies

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Will give longer reply later but the "much adoo" Brookings link seems to describe Turkey as a model even though Nodin et al's posts will tell us inhumane dangerous and have right to flee. Is it even factually correct considering Turkey isn't taking "refugees" from Syria (e.g UN meaning). Lebanon a country that has had literal wars in camps in the past is also given.
Thats without pointing out differences between states with social safety net and 1st world economies

Not really a "Much adoo": the Brookings Institution is the most influential in the world .

The big problem with Turkey isn't that it's failing to provide support for refugees but that Middle Eastern refugees can't claim asylum there. Basically they exist in limbo. Ditto with Lebanon. This doesn't mean it's "factually incorrect".
If you can disprove Brookings arguments, please do so.

kettlehead

Lockstep wrote: »

Have you a source for your claim that only 20% are Syrian then? Presumably you're going by the Eurostat figures but these predate the crisis and are not very relevant.

Yes, Eurostat. I'm not allowed link until I earn my stripes. They come from this year and do not predate this crisis as the crisis has been going on for years. The Italians and Greeks have been screaming for help since 2010, yet you europhiles act like this situation just sprung out of nowhere and caught the EU completely unaware.

kettlehead

The IFO reckon that the refugees will cost €21,000,000,000.00 per annum. The German labour minister reckons that only 10% of the migrants will gain employment within the first year and the number on welfare will drastically increase.

And people are talking about them being a net benefit? Spoofery of the highest order.

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

The IFO reckon that the refugees will cost €21,000,000,000.00 per annum. The German labour minister reckons that only 10% of the migrants will gain employment within the first year and the number on welfare will drastically increase.

And people are talking about them being a net benefit? Spoofery of the highest order.

As pointed out earlier, these people are being taken in as refugees.

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Yes, Eurostat. I'm not allowed link until I earn my stripes. They come from this year and do not predate this crisis as the crisis has been going on for years. The Italians and Greeks have been screaming for help since 2010, yet you europhiles act like this situation just sprung out of nowhere and caught the EU completely unaware.

As mentioned before, the Eurostat figures are completely out of date: they only go as far as June and of the refugees who arrived in 2015, just 17% had arrived when Eurostat released its figures. It only became a crisis in its current form in the summer of 2015. You say it's been going on for years but here are the refugee numbers for previous years:
2010: 9654
2011: 70,402
2012: 22,439
2013: 59,421
2014: 216,054
2015: 862,901
22,000 refugees in 2012 is hardly comparable to the hundreds of thousands arriving in 2015.

Syrian refugees amount to 52% of 2015 refugees arriving in Europe. Not 20%. Unless you can provide contemporary sources?

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

The IFO reckon that the refugees will cost €21,000,000,000.00 per annum. The German labour minister reckons that only 10% of the migrants will gain employment within the first year and the number on welfare will drastically increase.

And people are talking about them being a net benefit? Spoofery of the highest order.

You're right. The Brookings Institution, European Commission, University College London,Center for Global Development and Foreign Affairs are all completely ignorant and "spoofers". Clearly they know nothing.

The IFO's estimate is for this year only, not on an ongoing basis. This would decrease as the refugees find jobs (training and investment is part of the costs factored in by the IFO). Remember, the above institutions are factoring in the long term costs of refugees: not just the cost in 2015.
Likewise, the German Labour minister says that while initial unemployment will rise, Germany will overcome this ( though not overnight
Germany has a labour shortage: refugees are critical in overcoming this.

kettlehead

The Danes have decided to rescind their offer to take part in the 160,000 migrant quota dispersal scheme. Should we follow suit and use our option of an opt out?

But the increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers currently coming to Denmark means that the nation can no longer take in the 1,000 previously promised refugees, the PM said at his party's national congress in Herning over the weekend.

"When we made the offer it was because we needed to solve what was viewed in Europe as the ultimate solution: that if you could distribute those 160,000, the problem would be gone. It is not," the PM told DR.

“The assumption that they would be distributed was based on the fact that Greece and Italy had control of the situation, but they don't. So you could say that they have distributed themselves. So, it is not an option to take the 1,000 before the systems are up and running again,” continued the Prime Minister.

kettlehead

Nodin wrote: »

As pointed out earlier, these people are being taken in as refugees.

Yes, and 50,000 of them are sleeping in tents. And that was before another 181,000 arrived this month so far. Do you think Europe and Germany have an infinite capacity to take in "refugees" or something?

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

Not really a "Much adoo": the Brookings Institution is the most influential in the world .

The big problem with Turkey isn't that it's failing to provide support for refugees but that Middle Eastern refugees can't claim asylum there. Basically they exist in limbo. Ditto with Lebanon. This doesn't mean it's "factually incorrect".
If you can disprove Brookings arguments, please do so.

Its an irrelevance how they handle it because in your own statements they arent treated as refugees so you aren't comparing like with like. Any views on the German think tank I posted earlier in thread (who have heavily influenced Merkel in past)

kettlehead

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its an irrelevance how they handle it because in your own statements they arent treated as refugees so you aren't comparing like with like. Any views on the German think tank I posted earlier in thread (who have heavily influenced Merkel in past)

Much of the costs of running the camps are picked up by NGOs not the Lebanese. Also, the Norwegians have estimated that for every one refugee they take in, they could provide for twenty-six in the camps in Lebanon and Jordan.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its an irrelevance how they handle it because in your own statements they arent treated as refugees so you aren't comparing like with like. Any views on the German think tank I posted earlier in thread (who have heavily influenced Merkel in past)

Actually, it is relevant as both cases (EU and Middle Eastern countries) involve large numbers of migrants arriving in and in both cases, the economic impact is positive.
Then there's the CREAM report, European Commission and Center for Global Development who all agree that migrants have a positive economic impact on their host country. If you've any sources to disprove their arguments, please provide them.

The IFO is arguing that the minimum wage should be abolished. That's about it.

kettlehead

The Swedes are next to pull up the drawbridge. They can do one if they expect the rest of us to take their "refugees" off them and follow them down the rabbit hole of open borders insanity. They brought all of this on themselves. Let them eat hummus!

Speaking at a press conference alongside an almost-tearful deputy leader Åsa Romson on Tuesday afternoon, the Prime Minister outlined a series of measures designed to stem a rising tide of people arriving in Sweden.

These measures are:

• The Aliens Act will be adjusted so that Sweden accepts the EU minimum level of refugees. This will apply for three years.

• The right to family reunification will be subject to a very strict time limit.

• The ages of all unaccompanied children will be medically verified.

• All new asylum seekers will be given temporary residence permits only. Exceptions will be made for children and families who registered before the new rules are introduced.

• ID checks will be enforced on all modes of public transport to Sweden.

Before announcing the measures Löfven told reporters, "It pains me to say that Sweden is no longer able to accept the high number of asylum seekers we're seeing today. (…) The situation is unsustainable."

Löfven was very critical of other EU countries who he felt were not taking equal responsibility for the refugees.

"Now we must show that we can do no more. The aim of the measures we are implementing is to create a respite for Sweden."

"The current situation is untenable - this view is confirmed by reports we receive from government agencies."

"Therefore we must significantly reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to Sweden."

"We must create breathing space for the Swedish asylum system. We must get people seeking asylum to apply to other countries," said Löfven.

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

Yes, and 50,000 of them are sleeping in tents. And that was before another 181,000 arrived this month so far. Do you think Europe and Germany have an infinite capacity to take in "refugees" or something?

There are not an infinite number of refugees.

jackofalltrades

Lockstep wrote: »

On the whole, the refugee crisis is having a small but positive impact on economic growth.

Lockstep wrote: »

Except it's not just based on public spending: it's also based on the expanded workforce offered by the refugees.

The author of that article seems to have a chip on his shoulder that Britain isn't doing what he considers enough.
There are a lot of things claimed in the article that I would like to see backed up.
Especially the claim of.

As well as a GDP boost due to increased government activity, host countries are likely to see lower budget deficits in the long term because of migrants’ contributions, meaning more spare cash will be available to spend on public services.

Also a 0.2% increase in GDP, for transit and host countries is IMO not a big enough increase to be using it as a selling point.
Especially when you consider the medium to long term economic and social consequences of trying to integrate such a large number of migrants at once.
Sweden comes out as having the largest economic benefit with a 0.5% increase, but it's telling that the potential biggest beneficiary is doing a U-turn on its refugee policy.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

There are not an infinite number of refugees.

Not quite infinite...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

View

kettlehead wrote: »

The problem is that only a minority of them end up getting deported. Take Ireland for example, if this weren't the case, the direct provision centres would be pretty empty.

We have no obligation to provide direct provision (or anything else) to someone who has their claim for asylum rejected. We are perfectly free and always have been to deport them if they do not leave voluntarily. If we don't, that's a problem we are creating by allowing a build up to occur.

That though doesn't detract from the genuine needs that genuine refugees have, and should not impact their genuine cases.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not quite infinite...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

You seem to be confusing immigration with refugees.

That - according to the information on the you tube site - is a version of a 1996 anti-immigrant demonstration made by one Roy Beck, an anti-immigration campaigner and founder member of the extremist NumbersUsa, regarded by the Southern Poverty Law centre as a hate group.