Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Considering refugees are a subset of immigrants, it's fairly logical that ignorance on refugees would be matched with ignorance on immigration.

At any rate, in Britain, the public are just as misinformed on refugees

What is your point here?

The point being that its not ignorance but a reluctance to to accept asylum seekers in large numbers like what has happened in Germany.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

I never siad anything about figures . I just the posed the question but if you wish to orate do so .

You said there will be many who will pretend to be from Syria. Doubtless, some well but evidently, a large number of arrivals are indeed from Syria. Even among those with fake Syrian passports, most are Syrians who were unable to obtain Syrian passports through official Syrian channels.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

The point being that its not ignorance but a reluctance to to accept asylum seekers in large numbers like what has happened in Germany.

Given the aforementioned positive economic benefits of refugees arriving in Europe and the public's ignorance on how many are arriving, such reluctance is a shame. When we can help others without it costing us anything, it's a regrettable result.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Given the aforementioned positive economic benefits of refugees arriving in Europe and the public's ignorance on how many are arriving, such reluctance is a shame. When we can help others without it costing us anything, it's a regrettable result.

So taking in asylum seekers and refugees will cost us nothing . Interesting. How many should Ireland take in .
Do you have an agenda or work with such people.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

So taking in asylum seekers and refugees will cost us nothing . Interesting. How many should Ireland take in .

This has already been debated extensively in the thread if you back through it.

As shown already, the European Commission predicts that the refugees will have a small but positive impact on the EU's economy, even if all the arrivals were low-skilled.
Lebanon which has taken in vast numbers of refugees has seen refugees as an economic benefit , stimulating domestic demand and encouraging exports.

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 negative economic impact 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"


I'm not expert in economics nor migration so I'd be hesitant to pluck a figure out of the air in terms of how many we can take in. Relative to our population size though, I'd see few problems with the 5,000 that the government are offering asylum to.

rgossip30 wrote: »

Do you have an agenda or work with such people.

No, I just look at evidence (such as the above) before making my mind up.
But accuse me of being a shill if it makes you feel better.

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

Do you have an agenda or work with such people.

There's no need to throw out accusations like this. Quit it please.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Or that any Tom, Dick & Ahmed with a dodgy Aleppo library card can enter almost at will.

(remembering that one of the 9 perps who carried out the Paris attacks entered the EU on a bogus ID)

Well we had Madrid and London attacks before Syria. Correlation does not equal causation.

KingBrian2

Lockstep wrote: »

Given the aforementioned positive economic benefits of refugees arriving in Europe and the public's ignorance on how many are arriving, such reluctance is a shame. When we can help others without it costing us anything, it's a regrettable result.

4 million UKIP voters you could claim are ignorant of the refugee crisis. Your suggesting the combined total of all Labour, Conservative, Welsh, SNP, DUP, Liberal and Socialist party voters are ignorant of the refugee crisis does not add up. I give the British electorate more credit than that. They know for instance that a backlog of cases of Afghanis and Iraqis are looking to enter the UK. They are also well aware that included in the numbers are the Palestinians that are a stateless people. I would like to see the figures on the number of Palestinians and of course Kurds. Syria was itself a big magnet for refugees.

Lockstep

KingBrian2 wrote: »

4 million UKIP voters you could claim are ignorant of the refugee crisis. Your suggesting the combined total of all Labour, Conservative, Welsh, SNP, DUP, Liberal and Socialist party voters are ignorant of the refugee crisis does not add up. I give the British electorate more credit than that. They know for instance that a backlog of cases of Afghanis and Iraqis are looking to enter the UK. They are also well aware that included in the numbers are the Palestinians that are a stateless people. I would like to see the figures on the number of Palestinians and of course Kurds. Syria was itself a big magnet for refugees.

Logical fallacy right there

I'm not speculating that the British public are ignorant on refugees: this is a matter of fact

Presumably, stateless people would fall into the "other" category under the UNHCR's figures. Even if we assume that every refugee not from the top ten countries is stateless, this would amount to 10%

If you've any sources to prove your claims, please provide them.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Given the aforementioned positive economic benefits of refugees arriving in Europe and the public's ignorance on how many are arriving, such reluctance is a shame. When we can help others without it costing us anything, it's a regrettable result.

Can you explain why there is now mounting opposition in Eu countries that have taken in large numbers of Syrian refugees ?
The citizens of Europe are they also ignorant of the future utopia ?

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

Can you explain why there is now mounting opposition in Eu countries that have taken in large numbers of Syrian refugees ?
The citizens of Europe are they also ignorant of the future utopia ?

Dunno: probably the same as the UK where even after years of EU immigration (with a hugely positive economic impact on Britain's economy as shown by the CREAM report), the public is opposed to immigration . Once again, it's presumably down to public ignorance or fear of the unfamiliar. At any rate, this once again relies on an appeal ad populum fallacy.

Steady on there: I never said it was going to become a utopia or anything like that. Empirically though, the prediction is that the refugee intake will benefit the EU's economy.
Personally, I'd argue that we should help those fleeing genocide and slaughter even if it inconveniences us. When the result is economically positive (as is the case here), it makes even less sense.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

Well we had Madrid and London attacks before Syria. Correlation does not equal causation.

None of which were carried out by actual Europeans, those attacks were the direct result of unfettered immigration from the third world.

Frank Grimes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of which were carried out by actual Europeans, those attacks were the direct result of unfettered immigration from the third world.

What do you mean by "actual Europeans"? Three out of the four London 2005 bombers were born in Britain.

JPNelsforearm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

What do you mean by "actual Europeans"? Three out of the four London 2005 bombers were born in Britain.

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles, nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles, nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.

I fail to see how the actions of a tiny few are grounds to blame the millions of immigrants in Europe for these atrocities. In addition, I would like to point out that there is no unfettered mass immigration.

Frank Grimes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles, nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.

Three of them were born in Britain, why do you think they are not indigenous to a country they were born in?

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I fail to see how the actions of a tiny few are grounds to blame the millions of immigrants in Europe for these atrocities. In addition, I would like to point out that there is no unfettered mass immigration.

Shortly after the 2005 general election campaign, the Home Office published "best guess" figures on illegal immigration drawn up by experts in the field.
The figures ranged from 310,000 to 570,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4989874.stm

Is that not unfettered? You dont actually know the number nor status of half a million people who crossed your border...

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Shortly after the 2005 general election campaign, the Home Office published "best guess" figures on illegal immigration drawn up by experts in the field.
The figures ranged from 310,000 to 570,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4989874.stm

Is that not unfettered? You dont actually know the number nor status of half a million people who crossed your border...

Neither do you. This is merely a guess. When you say "unfettered", I take that to mean that there are no legal barriers to people coming here.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles, nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.

So they wouldn't be allowed take a holiday here?

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Neither do you. This is merely a guess. When you say "unfettered", I take that to mean that there are no legal barriers to people coming here.

There is a "legal barrier" on paper, but if the enforcement is not funded or prioritised it is essentially unfettered for those bold enough to make the journey, hence the "unknown" number and migration "crisis" in the EU.

K-9 wrote: »

So they wouldn't be allowed take a holiday here?

Ha, clearly they would, provided they met the criteria for a holiday visa, same as I did when I applied for a working visa to work abroad in the States and Oz. But its has to be enforced, policed and funded, you clearly cant rely on honesty when you are dealing with a welfare state and a black economy.
take the current scam with the "language schools", proper migration enforcement would have nipped all of that in the bud.

K-9

Your logic is like saying the IRA would never have bombed Warrington et al if there wasn't free movement of Irish people to the UK. The thing with terrorists is they tend to find ways around laws and tight security, that is kind of their thing.

We know terrorist attacks will happen regardless of Syria, because well they have. Tightening immigration will definitely please some, but it isn't going to stop ISIS or whoever.

View

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

None of these men are indigenous to the British Isles,

Humans aren't indigenous to the British Isles but rather to Ethiopia based on the latest research.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

nor would they have ever stepped foot in Britain but for unfettered mass immigration.

See above.

And there doesn't appear to be a Meditarrean connection in the cases of those individuals nor, indeed, a wider EU one since the decision to admit them to the UK was an entirely UK one. You are not suggesting that the other member states of the EU should have the right to decide who gets let into the UK, are you? :-)

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Your logic is like saying the IRA would never have bombed Warrington et al if there wasn't free movement of Irish people to the UK. The thing with terrorists is they tend to find ways around laws and tight security, that is kind of their thing.

+1

I've had to deal with a small amount of anti-Irish abuse in the UK so this rings true for me somewhat. I think that it's grossly unfair to pin the actions of a few people on a population of over a billion most of whom do not commit atrocities.

KingBrian2

Lockstep wrote: »

Logical fallacy right there

I'm not speculating that the British public are ignorant on refugees: this is a matter of fact

Presumably, stateless people would fall into the "other" category under the UNHCR's figures. Even if we assume that every refugee not from the top ten countries is stateless, this would amount to 10%

If you've any sources to prove your claims, please provide them.

You keep showing the same citations which only further the case that their is a refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. The countries in these region are being inundated with migrants and they cannot handle them. They are also contributing to the unemployment rate and accelerating the level of demographic decline.

This links are old ones.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/chaos-greek-islands-three-tier-refugee-registration-system-syria-lesbos

http://fortune.com/2015/09/08/europe-refugee-crisis-spain/

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

Your logic is like saying the IRA would never have bombed Warrington et al if there wasn't free movement of Irish people to the UK. The thing with terrorists is they tend to find ways around laws and tight security, that is kind of their thing.

We know terrorist attacks will happen regardless of Syria, because well they have. Tightening immigration will definitely please some, but it isn't going to stop ISIS or whoever.

Why did(or did they, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-23632246) the IRA or bomb Warrington, and surely their standard operating procedure of giving a warning cannot be compared to mere Islamic terrorism. The attacks are however, incomparable, on the one hand you say three of the bombers were "British", and then you compare them to the IRA who are/were freedom fighters with ostensibly nationalist goals, for whose freedom did those lads bomb London on 7/7, the freedom to what? What British cause were they fighting for?

The Paris attacks and the attacks in London would not have happened if we had a logical immigration system.

View wrote: »

Humans aren't indigenous to the British Isles but rather to Ethiopia based on the latest research.



See above.

And there doesn't appear to be a Meditarrean connection in the cases of those individuals nor, indeed, a wider EU one since the decision to admit them to the UK was an entirely UK one. You are not suggesting that the other member states of the EU should have the right to decide who gets let into the UK, are you? :-)

I would subscribe to the multi regional theory of evolution but, even if we subscribe to the "out of Africa" theory we are still dealing with continuing evolution, so its a stupid point to even make. Verging on utopian equality that ignores the genetic and cultural differences between peoples. How many inventions and nobel prize winners come from Ethiopia, how many come from indigenous British(anglo saxon/english etc) people.

Ha, the UK's immigration problem will become ours in short order due to common travel, it already has with FGM being imported over here when the police cracked down on it in the UK.
Every country should have control of its borders. Look at the indigenous tribesmen being wiped out in the Amazon, you need a nation and strong borders or you will cease to be a unique population in short order.

K-9

So basically your contention is the IRA were gentlemanly terrorists, but totally fail to address my point and the huge gap in your logic.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why did(or did they, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-23632246) the IRA or bomb Warrington, and surely their standard operating procedure of giving a warning cannot be compared to mere Islamic terrorism. The attacks are however, incomparable, on the one hand you say three of the bombers were "British", and then you compare them to the IRA who are/were freedom fighters with ostensibly nationalist goals, for whose freedom did those lads bomb London on 7/7, the freedom to what? What British cause were they fighting for?

The Paris attacks and the attacks in London would not have happened if we had a logical immigration system.

Of course they're comparable. The IRA bombings would have stirred up significant anti-Irish sentiment just as Daesh, al-Qaeda, etc will have fomented anti-Islamic sentiment in the public eye.

Frank Grimes

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The attacks are however, incomparable, on the one hand you say three of the bombers were "British", and then you compare them to the IRA who are/were freedom fighters with ostensibly nationalist goals, for whose freedom did those lads bomb London on 7/7, the freedom to what? What British cause were they fighting for?

I said they were British, why the use of quotation marks around British? What about them, exactly, does not make them British in your eyes?

The Paris attacks and the attacks in London would not have happened if we had a logical immigration system.

What would that consist of, exactly?

Look at the indigenous tribesmen being wiped out in the Amazon, you need a nation and strong borders or you will cease to be a unique population in short order.

Does your "logical immigration policy" allow for any form of immigration or would that be too risky for the gene pool?

gallag

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I said they were British, why the use of quotation marks around British? What about them, exactly, does not make them British in your eyes?

Well in my eyes they are not British because they did not identify as British, they hate British values and way of life, and they exploded themselves on public transport to kill as many British people who they hate as possible.

View

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I would subscribe to the multi regional theory of evolution

That is obvious nonsense. As all humans can inter-breed that means we are all one species. Also, no one has ever claimed the British Isles as being a regional evolutionary centre for mankind. Homo By Jingo is entirely your own invention. :-)

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

but, even if we subscribe to the "out of Africa" theory we are still dealing with continuing evolution, so its a stupid point to even make. Verging on utopian equality that ignores the genetic and cultural differences between peoples. How many inventions and nobel prize winners come from Ethiopia, how many come from indigenous British(anglo saxon/english etc) people.

None of the above alters that mankind is not indigenous to the British Isles. Nor indeed is it particularly relevant since it ignores pre-modern times. An "invention" such as farming has had a far greater impact on mankind than most modern discoveries, yet you won't find the original farmers in any gallery of Nobel prize winners. Nor will you find the Arab & Indian mathematicians whose works form the foundations of the math we use today to underpin our daily lives.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ha, the UK's immigration problem will become ours in short order due to common travel,

The U.K. has been running a very liberal immigration policy for decades. That's their right as a sovereign nation and it is entirely a matter for the UK, so it really is none of our business. We aren't going to rejoin the UK just so you can alter their sovereign decisions.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Every country should have control of its borders. Look at the indigenous tribesmen being wiped out in the Amazon, you need a nation and strong borders or you will cease to be a unique population in short order.

Ireland has never controlled its own borders. We have had, at best, partial control in modern times. Likewise the UK with us. So also in the various regional open border areas that have existed throughout European history (eg Nordic, Austro-Hungarian, (European) Ottoman/Byzantine, Russian, Polish-Lithuanian, (Arabic and non-Arabic) Spain, (Germanic) Holy Roman Empire, (Original) Roman Empire etc). There are almost no borders that have remained unchanged in the last hundred years, much less controlled (Indeed so often do borders change that the RoI-NI one is actually now one of the older ones). All modern Europeans are products of those open and largely uncontrolled borders, yet I doubt you'd persuade many Europeans that their people are the lesser because of them.