Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Nichard Dixon

I am reminded of a Warsaw Pack era joke.
A genie appeared to a Hungarian man and offered him 3 wishes.
What is your first wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.
What is your second wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.
What is your third wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.

His friends said are you mad, why didn't you ask for a Mercedes?
he said, well the way I look at it the entire population of China is going to go through Russia 6 times!

In the present context, why if Sweden and Germany want to take a lot of refugees don't they simply send a plane to Turkey to get them? Hence no conflict on borders, drownings and so forth?

Nodin

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

I am reminded of a Warsaw Pack era joke.
A genie appeared to a Hungarian man and offered him 3 wishes.
What is your first wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.
What is your second wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.
What is your third wish?
He said I want all Chinese people to come to my house, say hallo and go back to China.

His friends said are you mad, why didn't you ask for a Mercedes?
he said, well the way I look at it the entire population of China is going to go through Russia 6 times!

In the present context, why if Sweden and Germany want to take a lot of refugees don't they simply send a plane to Turkey to get them? Hence no conflict on borders, drownings and so forth?

There are masses en route already? And in situ in Greece.

Nichard Dixon

Nodin wrote: »

There are masses en route already? And in situ in Greece.

Plane to Greece, then?

dlouth15

Nodin wrote: »

There are masses en route already? And in situ in Greece.

Remember that there are still about 4 million refugees from Syria who haven't made the journey. We don't care about those because they haven't either risked drowning or haven't crossed barbed wire borders. They are not piling up in Germany and so nothing needs to be done about them. They can suffer silently in camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

We care about the ones who have made the journey because they are exposing massive incompetency at the national and European level.

FelineOverLord

I'm wondering what's going on behind the scenes for our government to keep changing tacks on the migrants? First we were told 1800, and that they'd be from UN refugee camps. Then Joan said 5000 minimum, 2 days later Enda says that the 5000 was down to the rule of 4 when people have family members brought over, but again it would be people who'd been checked and approved before leaving Un refugee camps. Then Junker has a pop at the Irish in America and suddenly we're taking the bulk of them from Greece and Italy and they'll be checked when they get here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have a legal bill in the tens of millions for the migrants repeatedly mounting legal challenges against the decision to grant them asylum? Given that there's no limit to the amount of times they can appeal and that they have to be accomodated until a decision is reached is this not just asylum by the back door?

We then have Enda telling us there'll be no giveaway budget, well I think we all knew the budget extras were going to be going to the migrants, and I say migrants because they are not confirmed as genuine asylum seekers. I'd also like to know if what we're spending on these people is going to be deducted from the payments we're making on our bailout? Taking them in is fcuking ridiculous.

oscarBravo

FelineOverLord wrote: »

...I say migrants because they are not confirmed as genuine asylum seekers.

Let's clear up some terminology, because you seem confused.

If someone takes up residence in a country legally, they are an immigrant. If they take up residence illegally, they are an illegal immigrant.

If someone moves from one country to another in the hope of improving their lot in life, they are a migrant. If someone moves from one country to another to escape war or oppression, they are a refugee.

How do you distinguish refugees from migrants? If they don't apply for asylum, they are migrants. If they do apply for asylum, they are asylum seekers (not "genuine" or "bogus"; just seekers). If their application is adjudged to be valid, they are refugees. If not, they are migrants.

There are international agreements governing the handling of refugees and asylum seekers. None of those agreements seek to categorise asylum seekers as migrants by default, on the assumption that they might not be genuine.

Now, you as an individual are not bound by international law, and you can call them what you want - but that doesn't make you right; it just betrays your prejudices.

gobsh!te

72% of these migrants/asylum seekers are men......Does this mean that they left the wife and kids at home? I'm not sure we would want people like that in our country.

Not my opinion....unhcr figures

Lockstep

Lot of misinformation in this thread.

THEY'RE NOT REFUGEES. THEY'RE ECONOMIC MIGRANTS WITH NICE CLOTHES AND SMARTPHONES

According to the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, 50% of refugees crossing the Mediterranean are coming from Syria, 13% are coming from Afghanistan and 8% are fleeing Eritrea. Source
That's over 70% of the refugees either fleeing civil war (Syria, Afghanistan) or an Eritrean government so oppressive that it's known as North Korea on the Red Sea. They're not coming to Europe to get away from poverty or famine. They're coming to escape war, ISIS and government brutality.If you're expecting them to look "poorer", you've a terrible understanding of the conflict. Syrians comprise over half the refugees and prior to it's civil war, it was a middle income country with an 80% literacy rate. They're not fleeing poverty.

I SAW A PHOTO OF REFUGEES IN GERMANY CAUSING TROUBLE

First of all, be critical of everything you see on the internet, especially if it consists of a single image or video and very little context aside from sneering at desperate refugees. A lot of those are complete bullsh!t
Noone is saying that all the refugees are good people. Some of them will be deeply unpleasant people, just like the rest of us. This does not mean that we should turn our backs on them all, just like a few bad Irish people does not mean the rest of us are like that.

THEY JUST WANT TO COME HERE TO CLAIM THE DOLE

So far in 2015, over 2800 people have died crossing the Mediterranean. Do you really think people are going to such risks just to claim the dole?
source

IF WE MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR THEM, IT'LL JUST ENCOURAGE MORE TO COME

Even as the crossing got more dangerous, the numbers crossing the Mediterranean increased. Between 2013 and 2014, Italy ran its "Mare Nostrum" search and rescue operations which swept the Mediterranean for ships and rescued those in trouble. This saved tens of thousands of refugees but was politically unpopular and far too expensive for just one country. As such, it was replaced by an EU wide Operation Triton which was far less comprehensive and drastically increased the risk posed to migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean. Even as the crossing got more dangerous, the numbers trying to cross the Mediterranean surged as instability increased. Clearly, people are so desperate they'll willingly take the extremely dangerous risks to escape. It'd be hard for us to dissuade them without becoming extremely brutal.

WHY AREN'T THE MUSLIM STATES TAKING ANY IN?

Actually, they are Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in nearly 4 million refugees between them. Although the Gulf States have contributed vast amounts in aid.
However, it's also true that the Gulf States have taken in negligible numbers of refugees. This is unsurprising: no Gulf State is party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. At any rate, the Gulf States are utterly authoritarian and brutal states with terrible human rights records. Do you really want to use them as a benchmark for humanitarianism?

IF THEY WERE IN TURKEY, THEY WERE SAFE THERE AND CAN'T CLAIM ASYLUM ANYWHERE ELSE

Also, there's been a few posts claiming that they can't be refugees if they were safe in Turkey. Untrue. Turkey has a geographic limitation under the Refugee Convention which means that non-Europeans in Turkey lack any legal status and if they want safety, they need to head to a third country.
Ditto for Lebanon which requires its Syrians and are prohibited from working or getting Lebanese sponsors which leaves them

IF WE LET IN REFUGEES, ISIS WILL HAVE A BASE TO ATTACK US!

Oh please, ISIS are a bat**** insane terrorist group who slaughter minorities and keep sex slaves. Are you honestly going to trust everything they say? So far, thousands of Westerners have gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Surely they can use such people with European citizenship to move freely throughout the EU? None is saying the refugees should not be registered and screened upon their arrival. Obviously, some will be bad people and they should be kept out. But if you'd let thousands die because you're scared of the small risk of terrorism, you're a sad individual.
At any rate, the head of German Federal Intelligence thinks there's little risk of terrorists through the refugees.
"According to Schindler, it is unlikely that terrorists would dare to use boats across the Mediterranean to reach Europe. It would be a lot easier for them to reach Europe "with forged or stolen documents and a ticket," according to the BND boss."
Source

oscarBravo

FelineOverLord wrote: »

You seem determined to miss the point

Your point is abundantly clear; you seem to be mistaking making a point clearly for making one that's accurate.

If I advertise a job opening in my business, I will probably get hundreds of applicants. Upon interviewing the candidates, some will turn out to be serious prospects for the job, and others will turn out to be chancers.

Now, before I interview them, I don't know which of them is which, or what percentage of each I'm likely to encounter. By the logic you've espoused, I should describe them all as "chancers" rather than "candidates", because they're not confirmed as genuine prospects.

But that wouldn't be prejudicial on my part. No sirree bob.

FelineOverLord

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your point is abundantly clear; you seem to be mistaking making a point clearly for making one that's accurate.

If I advertise a job opening in my business, I will probably get hundreds of applicants. Upon interviewing the candidates, some will turn out to be serious prospects for the job, and others will turn out to be chancers.

Now, before I interview them, I don't know which of them is which, or what percentage of each I'm likely to encounter. By the logic you've espoused, I should describe them all as "chancers" rather than "candidates", because they're not confirmed as genuine prospects.

But that wouldn't be prejudicial on my part. No sirree bob.

It took 8 years, 15 court cases and 25 million pounds to get Abu Hamza out of Britain. We have, so far, a legal bill for 24 million euros in appeals for rejected asylum claims. We've not heard any migrants stating that they want to come to Ireland. Just wait until the word gets back home that if they come here they get a minimum 188 euro a week, plus medical card, plus free accomodation, free dental care, free education and child benefit and it won't be long before the flights from Turkey to Ireland will be jam packed with migrants claiming asylum.

oscarBravo

FelineOverLord wrote: »

Just wait until the word gets back home that if they come here they get a minimum 188 euro a week, plus medical card, plus free accomodation, free dental care, free education and child benefit and it won't be long before the flights from Turkey to Ireland will be jam packed with migrants claiming asylum.

I'm curious: did you post that because you believe it; or did you post it knowing it to be untrue? Because neither reflects well on your argument.

David Fiala

@oscarBravo and @FelineOverLord
You both have good point on this situation, Oscar i would agree not everyone is same.
Feline i don't think they would get weekly doll as they would be consider as a refugees, but yes it would bring cost which would be paid from tax payers money, but i also heard about some funding from EU for these people so it's hard to tell.
But in overall i would say they are going to skip Ireland and they will go to UK.
The only thing what bothers me, there is so many homeless people in Ireland it would not look good if those refugees had way better conditions as It would raise a question : We are not able to take care of own citizens We would rather care for imigrants?

peace out

Nodin

FelineOverLord wrote: »

It took 8 years, 15 court cases and 25 million pounds to get Abu Hamza out of Britain. .

Whats the relevance of that to the Mediterranean migrants?

FelineOverLord wrote: »

We have, so far, a legal bill for 24 million euros in appeals for rejected asylum claims. We've not heard any migrants stating that they want to come to Ireland. Just wait until the word gets back home that if they come here they get a minimum 188 euro a week, plus medical card, plus free accomodation, free dental care, free education and child benefit and it won't be long before the flights from Turkey to Ireland will be jam packed with migrants claiming asylum.

But it won't, because they don't.

David Fiala

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the relevance of that to the Mediterranean migrants?




But it won't, because they don't.

I think he's trying to say What problem could show up
He's generalizing way too much but same time he gave a good example

Nodin

David Fiala wrote: »

I think he's trying to say What problem could show up
He's generalizing way too much but same time he gave a good example

Were we to apply that logic in an even handed manner, we'd never let anyone in the country from anywhere.

K-9

David Fiala wrote: »

I think he's trying to say What problem could show up
He's generalizing way too much but same time he gave a good example

But the logic means we can't take anybody in because there's a potential ISIS bomber in their ranks.

That type of logic and fear mongering caused serious discrimination and hate for Irish people in the 70's and 80's.
People often don't get the connection when they apply it to others.

David Fiala

K-9 wrote: »

But the logic means we can't take anybody in because there's a potential ISIS bomber in their ranks.

That type of logic and fear mongering caused serious discrimination and hate for Irish people in the 70's and 80's.
People often don't get the connection when they apply it to others.

But people do fear of this risk and there is no way to tell who's good and who's bad.

Well i don't know about this ''hate for Irish people in the 70's and 80's.'' as I'm from Europe

It's up to government to decide what to do

But from my own experience there is dark side in some of these people

Look how it end up in UK most of those Muslims left country to join IS - this is the risk I'm worried about you feed them, give them shelter and then they join IS.

What i can't get into my head is that NATO have so large army and they are unable to wipe IS, USA always being the big talker but i feel there is some conspiracy ( there are people getting rich because of IS and oil)

gobsh!te

I received an infraction for providing facts showing the percentage of men that are refugees/asylum seekers..

Quite silly.

I think this is a very important debate and we need to speak about this with facts rather than emotion.

I would prefer to help families rather than single men. Is this wrong? I know it may be politically incorrect but I am not a politician.

Sweden is projected to be 40% Muslim by 2030 according to the EU's figures (this may be earlier as the estimate was pre-migrant/asylum seeker crisis)

Is a good thing, or a bad thing or a something not of importance. I would like to hear others views.

The most important thing I believe are facts.

Nodin

David Fiala wrote: »

But people do fear of this risk and there is no way to tell who's good and who's bad.

Well i don't know about this ''hate for Irish people in the 70's and 80's.'' as I'm from Europe

It's up to government to decide what to do

But from my own experience there is dark side in some of these people

Look how it end up in UK most of those Muslims left country to join IS - this is the risk I'm worried about you feed them, give them shelter and then they join IS.

What i can't get into my head is that NATO have so large army and they are unable to wipe IS, USA always being the big talker but i feel there is some conspiracy ( there are people getting rich because of IS and oil)

Theres a "dark side" to every group you let in.

They did?

ancapailldorcha

gobsh!te wrote: »

I received an infraction for providing facts showing the percentage of men that are refugees/asylum seekers..

You ignored a mod warning. Do not post in this thread again.

Rightwing

A dangerous precedent has been set here. To migrants (everywhere), the EU now looks weak. Get on a boat, any type of boat, and you will be rescued.

Wait until a massive drought strikes Africa and the march northwards begins. Can the EU turn them back ?

FelineOverLord

K-9 wrote: »

But the logic means we can't take anybody in because there's a potential ISIS bomber in their ranks.

That type of logic and fear mongering caused serious discrimination and hate for Irish people in the 70's and 80's.
People often don't get the connection when they apply it to others.

But what happened to us taking the refugees who've been living in UN Refugee camps? Those are the most desperate and vulnerable. The ones living in camps with less than 50% of the funding needed? What happened overnight between Enda announcing we'd be taking those people and then Joan telling us we'd be taking them from Greece and Italy? The truly vulnerable ones who are suffering the most will be left to suffer even more when the funding for the camps dries up because the EU countries need that money to provide for the migrants and asylum seekers in their countries.

So much money is going to be spent on deciding who is genuine and who isn't, not just here but all over Europe. Then more money will be spent on the countless appeals that will be made. Why are people organising donations for Calais and not the UN Camps? The migrants in Calais are causing havoc and making them more comfortable should be the last thing people are doing. Then again when stock isn't in the shops for Christmas because the trucks are stuck on the roads in Kent because of the Migrants and the kids aren't getting this year's must have Christmast toy and parents have to explain why it is that Santa didn't bring it, or the cost of things goes up because manufacturers start shipping by air to avoid the delays at Calais we will see how good an idea it was to support the migrants at Calais or how much support remains for them.

People need to educate themselves about what is happening with migrants/asylum seekers, the good things and the bad and not just make decisions based on media fed, biased reporting.

David Fiala

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a "dark side" to every group you let in.

They did?

Yes search for this why-are-so-many-young-british-muslims-joining-islamic-state-iraq-syria
I can't post link as I'm new user

fartingforfun

The father of the dead child was a people smuggler.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-europe-migrants-turkey-iraq-idUSKCN0RB2BE20150911

Rightwing

fartingforfun wrote: »

The father of the dead child was a people smuggler.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-europe-migrants-turkey-iraq-idUSKCN0RB2BE20150911

Ah don't post stuff like that, ruins a great story.

fartingforfun

Think long term.
The USA lost the Vietnam war because the civilians back in the states where against the war after they seen TV footage of innocent Vietnamese civilians getting killed. Military wise the USA could have wiped the floor with the North Vietnamese, but the public at home did not have the stomach for it.
Present day, the oil is in the middle east, the USA/EU want it, the way to get it all and keep it out of the hands of the Chinese is to invade and take it by force.
So the lessons from Vietnam are now put in effect, create the "Mad Muslim" who wants to kill all westerns, allow ISIS to grow and become pure evil, now flood the EU with muslims, a few terrorists attacks from some of these new european muslims, keep pushing the idea of "Mad Muslims" leave to simmer for a few years before you bring to the boil.
"The only way to protect our freedoms is if we take the war to ISIS and invade"
The public in USA/EU will by now agree with the politicians, and when the news video from this new war shows civilians getting killed, we in the west won't care.
"All those Muslims are mad, better to kill them before they kill us"

K-9

Mod:

There's a discussion on the rules thread on the main forum, use it for off topic moderation and modding stuff.

FelineOverLord

fartingforfun wrote: »

Think long term.
The USA lost the Vietnam war because the civilians back in the states where against the war after they seen TV footage of innocent Vietnamese civilians getting killed. Military wise the USA could have wiped the floor with the North Vietnamese, but the public at home did not have the stomach for it.
Present day, the oil is in the middle east, the USA/EU want it, the way to get it all and keep it out of the hands of the Chinese is to invade and take it by force.
So the lessons from Vietnam are now put in effect, create the "Mad Muslim" who wants to kill all westerns, allow ISIS to grow and become pure evil, now flood the EU with muslims, a few terrorists attacks from some of these new european muslims, keep pushing the idea of "Mad Muslims" leave to simmer for a few years before you bring to the boil.
"The only way to protect our freedoms is if we take the war to ISIS and invade"
The public in USA/EU will by now agree with the politicians, and when the news video from this new war shows civilians getting killed, we in the west won't care.
"All those Muslims are mad, better to kill them before they kill us"

OK. I'll see your paranoid oil theory and raise you Darfur. Darfur's oil reserves were said to rival Saudi Arabia's but 11 years on the Saudis are still sending mercenaries in to kill civilians and the Americans haven't invaded looking for oil, but 300000 are dead, millions are displaced and many still live in refugee camps too afraid to go home. People forget that though. Then again yesterday was 9/11 and it's the first year I can remember that there wasn't even a token mention of it on Irish or Uk news. Funny that.

fartingforfun

FelineOverLord wrote: »

OK. I'll see your paranoid oil theory and raise you Darfur. Darfur's oil reserves were said to rival Saudi Arabia's but 11 years on the Saudis are still sending mercenaries in to kill civilians and the Americans haven't invaded looking for oil, but 300000 are dead, millions are displaced and many still live in refugee camps too afraid to go home. People forget that though. Then again yesterday was 9/11 and it's the first year I can remember that there wasn't even a token mention of it on Irish or Uk news. Funny that.

As long as the Saudis provide oil for uncle sam they are allow to do what they want, this oil won't last forever. thats why i posted think long term. The USA/EU are doing the preparation work now, for when the Saudi oil runs out.

K-9

Mod:

There's a Conspiracy Theory forum on boards for the above stuff.