Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

jank

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's also no rule that says that war or dictatorship in your country makes you automatically a valid asylum seeker.

100% true.

Some here would have you believe for example that being a Kurd in Turkey means that you can automatically become a refugee. With kurds being around 20% of the overall population, we are talking a 15 million Turkish Kurds being given refugee status to wherever they want. Obviously this kind of rationale is devoid or reality.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, there are risks?

Hell with that, send the bastards home. At least that way, it's only them facing the risks.

Europeans shouldn't have to face risks. Risks are for little people.

I see you are engaging in this thread seriously!

Rightwing

Why isn't there pressure put on the Gulf States to take in these refugees? That's where they should be going. Western leaders are weak at the moment, and that's being kind to them.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rightwing wrote: »

Why isn't there pressure put on the Gulf States to take in these refugees? That's where they should be going. Western leaders are weak at the moment, and that's being kind to them.

Rightwing

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Those countries have gone above and beyond what one would expect.

However, the Gulf States are Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, UAE. They have taken 0, depsite being very wealthy.

The question remains, why?

weisses

Don't forget Israel who according to good aul Benjamin is "to small" to accomadate refugees ... Instead he wants to build a big fence

A Dub in Glasgo

Valid question, do not know why

A Dub in Glasgo

weisses wrote: »

Don't forget Israel who according to good aul Benjamin is "to small" to accomadate refugees ... Instead he wants to build a big fence

Israel is twice the size of Lebanon and Lebanon has 1.2m refugees!

weisses

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Israel is twice the size of Lebanon and Lebanon has 1.2m refugees!

It was also stated from within their government this was an European problem

fyfe79

creeper1 wrote: »

These people are coming no matter what and neither continents or seas or oceans or anything is getting in their way.

Not so sure about this. Didn't boatloads of people from Asia arrive at Australian shores last year seeking asylum and were told a blunt "no". The boats eventually stopped coming.

The boats coming from Turkey will eventually stop if the EU borders were to properly close, but this hasn't happened. Instead, the borders are gaping, all kinds of control have been abandoned, and this will encourage much more movement. Reports from Greece indicate that the majority of refugees already in Turkey are preparing to cross into Greece. We ain't seen nothing yet.

Stealthfins

I remember refugees from Libya been welcome to Shannon town.
That was during the 80's they mixed well and we used to play football with them out in the green.

Ennis is another place where there's a lot of emigrants,they set up businesses and mix well with the locals.
Barbours,kebab shops,restaurants,cafes and some of them volunteer in charity shops.

Looking back at this over the past 20 years,there has been no negative impact on the integration of Africans and Middle eastern people into Ennis.

Times were different back then,anyway I think a town like Ennis wouldn't tolerate trouble makers or racism.

The atmosphere in Ennis is good too,it's a well planned town,the populace areas are all within walking distance of the town,and there's a good mixture of schools Steiner,Catholic,Educate together.

I can see how it works right,during the 90's the idea of refugees in Ennis was a novelty where they were welcomed.

It's probably a different story now,maybe if it's managed right it may work.

Might be better to scatter families throughout the country maybe a few in each village and town and have them living a distance from one another,so Muhammad's family are a ten minute walk from Ibrahim's family.

So to get from one side of the village or town they both can meet locals see the goings on such as paddy and his dog in the tractor,old Mary outside doing the flowers and experience the rural Irish life.

Sounds better to me than lumping them all together into a ghetto style situation.

My fear is that's what will happen.

FelineOverLord

I've never been a believer in conspiracy theories, I always thought they were nutters. That being said, I've seen videos posted on various forums showing footage that isn't being aired by mainstream media. For example, we had constant coverage by Sky of migrants sitting on a train in Hungary and the emphasis was most definitely biased in favour of the migrants and we were not shown the images of police distributing food and water which was subsequently dumped on the tracks by the migrants, most of it was refused by the adults, with little or no regard for the few children that were there, in fact in the footage I saw it was only the children who were accepting food. The police were being portrayed in a very negative light and unjustifiably so.

Belgium has extremist muslim groups who are publically open in their plans to make Belgium an Islamic state by 2030, they're well on the way with 40% of kids in Belgian schools and the most popular boys name in Belgium for the past 4 years running being Muhammad. I heard one extremist say they intend to out breed the Belgian people and impose Sharia law on the Belgian people.

The migrants are commiting a huge amount of violent crime in all of the countries that they've arrived in, obviously not all migrants, and I use the word migrant because that is what I believe them to be until they can prove that they have a genuine case for asylum, are scumbags but many are. Italy and Greece can't cope with them and the people have had enough but we aren't being shown that on Sky, BBC, Channel 4, ITV, or RTE, in fact the coverage is a constant spoon fed message of 'migrants/refugees good'. The same can be said of various discussion sites. Don't tow the line and you're labelled a xenophobe and gagged. Why are the mainstream broadcasters burying the negative behaviour of migrants? Why is the Europe wide media message pro migrant? Who is behind it pulling the strings and why?

dlouth15

The problem is that Schengen only works while the perimeter is secured.

Germany isn't really willingly taking large numbers of refugees. The refugees are simply arriving and Germany can't say no without suspending the Schengen agreement; something Merkel is reluctant to do.

What politicians are not admitting is that what we are seeing is a breakdown in agreed systems such as Schengen and Dublin. This breakdown is been dressed up as a humanitarian response to the crisis but it is not.

A true humanitarian response would involve taking refugees, the most vulnerable of them, directly from overcrowded camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc. Lets be honest here. We did not really care as the numbers were rising in these camps. Neither did other European countries. We only care when large numbers start crossing the Mediterranean.

Ireland should not get involved in the problems of Schengen countries. We are not a member of that system and it is up to them to secure their perimeter if they don't want large numbers turning up.

Ireland's humanitarian response should be to take part in official UN refugee programmes taking refugees directly from conflict areas.

A Primal Nut

weisses wrote: »

Don't forget Israel who according to good aul Benjamin is "to small" to accomadate refugees ... Instead he wants to build a big fence

If only European leaders had his courage.

Wurzelbert

A Primal Nut wrote: »

If only European leaders had his courage.

courage is no longer a european trait…not sure who still has it, not us europeans anyway…

A Primal Nut

With regard to Lebanon and Turkey, yes they have a lot of refugees but most of them are stuck in camps in terrible conditions. European countries are expected to give these people a similar standard of living to Irish people. The requirements for each refugee are completely different. Not to mention that if they come here they will be here permanently, whereas they would be happy to return home from Lebanon and Turkey.

Nodin

Rightwing wrote: »

Those countries have gone above and beyond what one would expect.

However, the Gulf States are Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, UAE. They have taken 0, depsite being very wealthy.

The question remains, why?

Because they're nasty sectarian monarchies? And who in their right mind (other than a strict wahabi) would want to be stuck in Saudi?

The Corinthian

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Alf Garnet you say ?
You could of course just say what you really mean: Those that disagree are racists.

It's a sad mindset aimed at stifling any form of discussion. Sadly prevalent these days.

Nonsense. By that definition, I'd also be racist as most of my posts in this thread are critical of the 'open door' attitude that many have - even the post you responded to was criticizing a generalization by someone who favoured taking in migrants in larger numbers, and I was pointing out to them that they are no better by those who generalize in the opposite direction, and there's been a few of them too.

So do try to read through what's actually said rather than responding with a knee jerk response that gets it all wrong, in future.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Because they're nasty sectarian monarchies? And who in their right mind (other than a strict wahabi) would want to be stuck in Saudi?

It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

Those countries have gone above and beyond what one would expect.

However, the Gulf States are Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, UAE. They have taken 0, depsite being very wealthy.

The question remains, why?

The question may well remain, but it has no bearing whatsoever on rights of those seeking asylum or on the obligations of other countries towards asylum seekers. Nobody is obliged to seek asylum in any particular country, and it's not relevant to a claim for asylum that it could have been made in another country.

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.

That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

(As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

(As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)

Well then you are more of an economic migrant than a genuine refugee fleeing a war-zone and the application process will or should reflect that. Lets not even talk about the Dublin Convention where by EU law these 'refugees' by law should be seeking asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, that would be Hungary for the most part, yet it seems this is being ignored until some other ad-hoc arrangement is made up from thin air by our esteemed leaders.

In Summary this post sums it up best.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96842543&postcount=30

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

Chips Lovell

If you were someone fleeing a war zone, what would you pick? Saudi Arabia or Germany? I know where I'd want to go.

jank

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If you were someone fleeing a war zone, what would you pick? Saudi Arabia or Germany? I know where I'd want to go.

The choice is not binary so its a false proposition. If I were fleeing war-zone, I would be fleeing that first and foremost, the nation I would ended up in after the fact once I am safe is another story entirely.

foggy_lad

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If you were someone fleeing a war zone, what would you pick? Saudi Arabia or Germany? I know where I'd want to go.

If I was told by Authorities to go to Saudi Where I would be helped I would go there as I Could/would expect NOTHING if I went to Germany!

Chips Lovell

Exactly.

BTW, Saudi Arabia isn't even a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.

jank

It is not exactly a secret that the gulf states are not topping the list of the best places in the world to live in, however, it should be used as context to the overall issue that for some justifiably the western/European response has been dissorganised and poor, at least many of these nations are willing to help and have offered taxpayer funded clothes, food, water and shelter, when in the cold hard light of day, they have no real obligation to (legal treaties are meaningless as we are finding out by the day)..... meanwhile their rich Arab neighbors in the Gulf it seems couldn't give a $hit and are in fact funneling money to ISIS to continue their barbaric ways of burning people alive and dipping people into acid as if its business as usual.

So, the next time people go on about 'the West sucks, rabble rabble rabble, have we no shame rabble rabble rabble' comparatively to the rest of the world we, The West (Europe/US/Canada/NZ/OZ) are the only ones that actually give a **** in the first place.

Australia has committed to talking in a few thousand Syrians it seems. Will other rich East Asian countries offer this help? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore...? (its a genuine question as I am willing to leave the story develop until I pass judgment) Most of these countries are not exactly open to migration, never mind migration from Muslim countries (China is hugely sensitive to it) so I expect not.

As an aside, I do notice on my FB feed with irony may I add, many of the usual Anti-Water brigade who boil over in rage at the prospect at paying 100 euro a year for clean drinkable water are now the same people who want to being over an undetermined about of Syrian refugees. Perhaps the refugees can pay for their clean water or are things like national budgets and revenue/expenses foreign to them as well?

Chips Lovell

Wouldn't disagree at all that European states have responded much better than Gulf states.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

It still does not negate the point. If you are Sunni then surely you can find safety and security there. Sure in the grand scheme of things its much better to be Munich with a view of the alps but this is not how it works.

You do realise that because somebody is a Sunni, it doesn't follow they are conservative wahabi monarchists or fundamentalists?

Nodin

Peregrinus wrote: »

That is exactly how it works. There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that says that you must apply in the country that Janks wishes you to apply in. You can apply in any country that is a party to the Refugee Convention.

(As it happens, none of the Gulf states are parties to the Convention, which explains why people might prefer to apply in Germany.)

Precisely.