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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

1…1112141617…30

Comments

  • #652
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    But that is only counting those proven to be Syrians, What about all the others?
    The government will be taking in Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. All of whom have an extremely high chance of being granted asylum.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Looking at those in Germany and the rest of Europe it does appear a large number, possible even a majority of people are not Syrian and not in need of any kind of Asylum
    The three relevent nationalities account for nearly two thirds of total European arrivals. We'll be taking in refugees from Hungary, Greece and Italy so I doubt Balkan refugees will be too prominent among them.

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    because they have tramped through several safe countries after spending months and years in safe camps.

    There's no obligations for refugees to seek asylum in the first safe place. Sure, under the Dublin Regulation, the first country is responsible but the onus isn't on the refugees to enforce this. Let me put it this way: were Jews who fled to the US from the Third Reich not refugees just because they'd have had to head to a safe country first?

    Secondly, the refugees were not able to claim asylum in the countries they predominate in anyway: Turkey has a reservation to the Refugee Convention so Middle Eastern refugees cannot claim asylum there, likewise, Jordan and Syria do not permit them to claim asylum, despite taking in millions.
    As for why they're moving now after "years in safe camps", there's a very valid reason for this. See here


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Europe has zero obligation to provide for the poor of the world! We simply MUST help those who are found to be genuinely seeking asylum out of human decency but that is where I draw the line!
    Which is the vast, vast majority of those claiming asylum from the three countries we'll be taking them from.


  • #653
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Let me make it clear, I understand the above points.
    It's just the conversation moved on, or I stopped discussing a particular point, but you still kept bringing up this information up in other conversations where it wasn't relevant.
    No, I brought in relevent points which you immediately discounted as irrelevent for some reason and are now claiming the conversation has moved on. These points have been in our exchange for so long because you tried to sidestep them. That's why they're relevent.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    You've repeatedly tried to bring subsidiary protection into a conversation that is only dealing with refugee status.
    Yes, because subsidiary protection is an important aspect of it. Over 1 in 5 Syrians will still be granted asylum, just not through the refugee process. This is a very significant number. Why are you so dismissive of subsidiary protection?


  • #654
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    No there isn't.
    I'm only talking about people getting refugee status.
    That's what the press releases are talking about, when they mention the 90% figure and that's what on the Department of Justices website.
    Why on earth would you solely limit to those able to claim refugee status? Those granted subsidiary protection are just as deserving of asylum status as refugees.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Because you have to be a failed asylum seeker before your subsidiary application claim will be considered; source.
    That and subsidiary protection is considered more temporary.
    They get all the same rights as refugees for three years and their claim is renewable. Even before their second term is up, they'd then be eligible for citizenship.


  • #655
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    jmayo wrote: »
    Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

    1. We are supposed to take in 4,000 right.
    Does this mean we only take 4,000 in total from either other European countries or camps in Jordan, Lebannon, etc ?
    What if someone ends up at Dublin ariport and asked for asylum, does that mean we now only have 3,999 places for the others ?
    As it's part of an EU-wide plan to settle refugees, the refugees will be those taken from Greece, Italy and Hungary. As such, if a refugee manages to arrive in Ireland, they'll be treated separately but won't be able to avail of the special conditions open to the 4000 (fast tracked review, etc)
    jmayo wrote: »
    2. Are we going to take in 4,000 next year and the year after, because lets face the flood aint going to stop anytime soon unless miracle cures are found for Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. should be a max number and what should it be ?
    There definitely should be a maximum number: we don't have unlimited resources. That said, given I'm not an economist or migration expert, I'd be reluctant to pick a figure out of the air. Considering our population size, the number specified seems like a reasonable amount, allowing for family reunification.
    jmayo wrote: »
    3. Do posters have a pecking order of refugee worthiness i.e. Syrians (and then which ones, as in Shia, Kurds, Alawis, Druze. Christians), Iraqi, Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghani, Libyan, etc, etc?
    No. If someone is entitled to claim asylum, they're entitled to claim asylum. We'll be taking Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans. These people all deserve asylum.
    jmayo wrote: »
    4. How do they think these 4,000 plus people should be integrated into Irish society ?
    Do they think they should be plonked in one area (should we deem one city/ town in Ireland should become our Marseille or Blackburn) or spread throughout the country ?
    I'm not an expert but they'd probably be better off being spread throughout the country so nowhere has a disproportionate burden.


  • #656
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    No, I brought in relevent points which you immediately discounted as irrelevent for some reason and are now claiming the conversation has moved on. These points have been in our exchange for so long because you tried to sidestep them. That's why they're relevent.
    Because they were.
    We were having a discussion on the specific point of what method would be used to select asylum seekers.
    I gave a guess and then you replied with this post.
    Lockstep wrote:
    Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR.

    You're acting like I have to acknowledge ever point you make, no matter what it's relevance to the discussion.

    And if you want to accuse people of sidestepping you'd want to make sure that you've answered all of their questions first.
    Did you see me bringing that question up all the time?


  • #657
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Yes, because subsidiary protection is an important aspect of it. Over 1 in 5 Syrians will still be granted asylum, just not through the refugee process. This is a very significant number. Why are you so dismissive of subsidiary protection?
    Why on earth would you solely limit to those able to claim refugee status? Those granted subsidiary protection are just as deserving of asylum status as refugees.
    I've already explained this repeatedly.
    I think you're deliberately straw-manning at this stage to appear like you have a rebuttal to the point, when you don't.
    So I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any more.


  • #658
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Because they were.
    We were having a discussion on the specific point of what method would be used to select asylum seekers.
    I gave a guess and then you replied with this post.

    You're acting like I have to acknowledge ever point you make, no matter what it's relevance to the discussion.
    Yes, you brought up the claim that 30% of people claiming to be Syrian are not actually Syrian. I highlighted the UNHCR's figures (which show a majority, not even a plurality) of arrivals being Syrian. It's doubtful they'd be lying about their nationality to the UNHCR as it is not responsible for their asylum applications.
    Are you honestly saying this isn't relevant in a discussion on the numbers of refugees who are Syrian?

    If you don't want to respond to something, that's totally fine. It's a very long post. But you can't try to disregard evidence for being "irrelevant" when it clearly is.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    And if you want to accuse people of sidestepping you'd want to make sure that you've answered all of their questions first.
    Did you see me bringing that question up all the time?

    What did I sidestep in that post?


  • #659
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I've already explained this repeatedly.
    I think you're deliberately straw-manning at this stage to appear like you have a rebuttal to the point, when you don't.
    So I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any more.

    Please explain one more time then. I'm not aware of you having addressed this already. Subsidiary protection is a very vital aspect of asylum law: even if someone is not entitled to refugee status, they can still be entitled to asylum under subsidiary protection which grants essentially identical protections, rights and entitlements as that of refugee status (aside from the fact it's renewable)

    You were the one who brought up claims that only 73% of Syrians are getting refugee status. This is true but also misleading and dishonest as you're ignoring that an additional 22% of asylum seekers are still granted asylum.
    Only 5% of Syrians are denied asylum. No matter how much you try and spin or obfuscate, you cannot change this.


  • #660
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jmayo wrote: »
    Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

    Mods often post as normal users in threads. You are around ages and have been involved in plenty of threads before with mods posting as regular users over the years. Any more questions about mods and moderation take it up on the discussion on the rules thread or pm us. Thanks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #661
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    Its friday night folks, dont awaken the beast.

    Will reopen when ive figured out whats gone wrong. I may never figure that out.


  • #662
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    K-9 wrote: »
    Why would we ignore subsidiary protection?
    These posts should provide context for that comment.

    #577
    #621
    #630


  • #663
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    These posts should provide context for that comment.

    #577
    #621
    #630

    I don't know why anybody would exclude subsidiary protection as somehow not worthy or not a refugee or something. If its something to do with appeals, should they not be allowed one.

    Our system does seem to drag on too long, something both sides of the debate agree on but I'm not seeing where subsidiary protection comes into that, unless you don't agree they should get it?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #664
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Those granted subsidiary protection are those ineligible for refugee status but where there's still a very real threat to their person from capital punishment, torture or (vital for Syria), a threat to their life from indiscriminate violence.

    Given not all Syrians will be threatened for their race, religion or political views but still face indiscriminate violence (barrel bombs, chemical attacks), it's an important one. Hence why only 5% of Syrians are being denied asylum, presumably due to them being denied refugee status for being deemed a security risk and so on.

    Ireland is quite unique in that subsidiary protection can only be granted after refugee status has been denied. This does not make the asylum seeker any less deserving of protection and is the fault of our bureaucracy, not the asylum seeker.


  • #665
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

    Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.


  • #666
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,253 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't know why anybody would exclude subsidiary protection as somehow not worthy or not a refugee or something. If its something to do with appeals, should they not be allowed one.

    Our system does seem to drag on too long, something both sides of the debate agree on but I'm not seeing where subsidiary protection comes into that, unless you don't agree they should get it?
    How did you come to that conclusion?:confused:
    Have you read the thread?


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Hexen
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Hexen


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

    Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.

    Plausible I guess (but who knows) - denied by the German government who say they expect the flow to slow during the winter. Quite a logistical challenge simply processing that many people. Border controls are expensive and will result in very large camps on Europe's periphery. Solution, I guess, lies in Turkey. EU will have to offer them something to limit the flow.


  • #668
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Bild (which is similar to The Sun, so make of it what you will) are claiming they have seen government documents that say that by the end of the year Germany expects to take in 1.5m refugees, up from the original 300.000 in April.

    Now again, it's Bild, they are not necessarily trustworthy but if true then I can't see the German people accept this much longer.


    That's bull. There will probably only be 100,000 refugees.

    Stop believing the right wing propaganda.


  • #669
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    That's bull. There will probably only be 100,000 refugees.

    Stop believing the right wing propaganda.

    I clearly said it's Bild so make of it what you will, I never said I believe it. Just posting it because it's relevant to the thread.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-europe-migrants-germany-numbers-idUSKCN0RY0UY20151004

    Reuters are also quoting Bild, but there's a lot of quotes in there from the report. Surely if they're lying about it the German government should tell them ?

    Not even Bild would make up quotes from a confidential document.

    As for 100.000, now there is some propaganda...


  • #670
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    I clearly said it's Bild so make of it what you will, I never said I believe it. Just posting it because it's relevant to the thread.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-europe-migrants-germany-numbers-idUSKCN0RY0UY20151004

    Reuters are also quoting Bild, but there's a lot of quotes in there from the report. Surely if they're lying about it the German government should tell them ?

    Not even Bild would make up quotes from a confidential document.

    As for 100.000, now there is some propaganda...

    Well the government don't know anything about it. Are you insinuating that they are lying?

    Come on, enough of the conspiracy stuff. We have a forum for that


  • #671
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Well the government don't know anything about it. Are you insinuating that they are lying?

    Come on, enough of the conspiracy stuff. We have a forum for that

    Maybe, maybe not. They haven't exactly been that good in handling the entire situation, given that Merkel's popularity is at an all-time low it's not far fetched to think they may want to keep this quiet.

    Do you think that the likes of the BBC, The Telegraph,... would take some Bild stuff over if they didn't think there may be something to it ?

    I'm just giving some information about what may or may not be happening in Germany, there is nothing 'conspiracy' about it. Are you afraid to read anything that may conflict with your view on something ?


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    LegalBagezal
    Registered Users Posts: 7 ✭LegalBagezal


    What I find funny in the whole situation is the criticism of bigger EU nations (Britain, Germany etc) against the treatment of migrants in Romania, honestly if Britain were in Romania's situation would they let uncontrolled unkown migrants from the middle east flood into their country?.. in fact I think the situation would be worse if Britain were in Romania's place, this is coming from someone living in the middle east.


  • #673
    catch2222
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭catch2222


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Ireland isn't doing enough here. We are talking the talk, and little else. I agree with Merkel.

    Why not bring the ships to Ireland instead of the nearest port? Would our navy be so good then ?

    A ridiculous situation at the moment.

    The country is rotten with them as it we do not want any more.


  • #674
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    catch2222 wrote: »
    The country is rotten with them as it we do not want any more.

    This post is below the standard of debate expected here. Please read the charter before posting again.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #675
    imme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    The End of Merkel
    The End of Germany
    The End of the EU

    which of these if any of them will result from the current events in Europe

    Did Angela Merkel go on a solo run when she declared that Germany open to all comers.
    There wasn't much solidarity to be seen from other EU members following on from Merkels pronouncement.

    Slovakia and some others announced that they would take some Christians.

    Merkel was left as being the only leader to shoulder the responsibility for her pronouncement.

    In recent days Turkey, the source of the transiting people, has been brought back into the frame again.
    Turkey is central to the Syria situation, because of proximity and direct involvement.

    Turkey has been 'offered' enhanced visa access to Europe, maybe even accelerated EU membership talks to keep hold of many of the people transiting through Turkey who express a wish to go to "Germania".

    Has Merkel come to realise that she hadn't thought out what she was about.

    If anyone is giving concessions to Turkey I'd like to have a vote on that.


  • #676
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    imme wrote: »
    The End of Merkel

    possibly
    imme wrote: »
    The End of Germany

    the finis germaniae happened some 70 years ago after 31 years of military and economic war against germany…what we have today is basically an american-controlled german economic zone with some internal sovereignty…
    imme wrote: »
    The End of the EU

    hopefully

    [...]
    imme wrote: »
    Did Angela Merkel go on a solo run when she declared that Germany open to all comers.

    what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

    [...]


  • #677
    Hexen
    Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Hexen


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

    I'm not sure there was a 'welcome' announcement by Merkel as such - more reactions/defence of decision to suspend Dublin Convention for Syrian refugees (that happened on 24 August, btw; she did give out about right-wing attacks that same day when she was meeting Hollande to discuss refugee issue).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-opens-its-gates-berlin-says-all-syrian-asylum-seekers-are-welcome-to-remain-as-britain-is-10470062.html

    She made numerous statements afterwards but really, it was already a crisis when the decision was made to suspend Dublin - which was badly broken anyway - and refugees were already streaming through Macedonia and on their way to Hungary. The miscalculation was that France and Germany could broker a remodeling of EU migration policy on their own.


  • #678
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    Interesting to see how long Merkel will last and how much the Germans can take as each day she digs a bigger hole for herself.


  • #679
    imme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    p
    what was her original “welcome all” announcement anyway, what was the original wording? i have been trying to find it…anyone able to provide a link? think it happened in late august…

    [...]
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60264684-5af4-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3p8U9Z63C

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34173720


  • #680
    stringed theory
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    Searching this thread for perspective, I thought - Africa alone has a population of 1.1 billion with a projected total of 4 billion by the end of the century and all through a vast and unstable zone from Pakistan to Nigeria, a huge number of people are changing how they think.
    I was recently about the Indian sub continent and Egypt and met people who even a year ago would have assumed they'd be arrested, detained and deported on arriving on a beach in Europe and now know different. In shanty towns, and even middle class suburbs, from Karachi to Kinshasa, the young and restless are thinking of making the move. And how could anyone blame them, if they've seen these places?
    It does not take a war for people to face danger to better themselves. Look at the Mexico US border where half a million illegal crossings occur each year. (I've seen the layers of fences at El Paso, Texas, which are much more elaborate than anything built by Hungary.) And I read a New York Times article last month projecting that if African European migration were to continue on that scale, relative to population (Latin America v Africa) then a quarter of Europeans would be African born in 25 years). Of course, the Mediterranean is wide...

    The numbers are small - so far. But as migration infrastructure improves we could be on the verge of the kind of population movement that has not been seen in Europe since late Antiquity, 4th and 5th century, with similar demographic and cultural consequences. What exactly is there to stop this, at present? Frontex? The Greeks and Italians? A few thousand token deportations? A shortage of rubber boats? It would take time, maybe the rest of the century, but never in the past millennium has Europe been so open, without some strong states at the periphery keeping migrants out.
    Even if Europe only had a hundred million (four year's population increase in Africa) and say a mere one million for Ireland what exactly would that mean? Proponents of unlimited migration/asylum rights should explain. My opinion is that there would be an underclass, an abolition of social welfare, a weakening of democracy, shanty towns, sweat shops. We'd start once more making the things currently made in China. Europe would thrive, in the way India thrives. But it would be very different.

    But I don't think there will be migration on this scale because somewhere down the line the poor in Europe (including most people who don't own property) will see where they are heading and rebel. So we may be looking at an explosion of right wing politics, a fragmentation of the EU, razor wire on the beaches, giant detention camps in Sicily etc.
    This is not going to end well. The longer it takes the governments of Europe to take control, and to come up with a viable long term strategy the harder it's going to be.


  • #681
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    The only long term strategy that is proven to work is to do as the Australians are doing and never allow the asylum seekers or migrants to settle or live in Australia.

    Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe Where the most basic of facilities can be provided for all the migrants and asylum seekers until their claims are processed and they are allowed stay in that Island/country or deported.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The only long term strategy that is proven to work is to do as the Australians are doing and never allow the asylum seekers or migrants to settle or live in Australia.

    Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe Where the most basic of facilities can be provided for all the migrants and asylum seekers until their claims are processed and they are allowed stay in that Island/country or deported.


    Why?


  • #683
    stringed theory
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Europe must find a place to settle all the asylum applicants and migrants that is outside of Europe.

    Europe doesn't have many options here. It could improve existing refugee camps in the middle east, bribe Turkey and Jordan to settle them, try to co-opt gulf states and client states in Africa, but there is nowhere like Papua New Guinea where refugees can simply be diverted to. Not unless Europe wants to invade Syria or Libya to create a 'safe haven.' Not very likely, at this stage, or advisable.
    The only practicable solution, in my opinion, is to detain all refugees on arrival in properly equipped camps, indefinitely if necessary, and to work from there.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Why?

    Because some people feel that multiculturalism should not be forced upon any nation but should be a free choice?


  • #684
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why?

    Why? So people stop dying at sea trying to get to Europe.

    More died last night....no more die trying to get to Australia.

    You support policies that result in dead babies at sea?

    Judge polices on their results not their intentions....that's your first mistake.....Pretty common among lefties....We all used to think like that in our early 20s so nothing to be ashamed off but unfortunately your support for these polices is killing people.


  • #685
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    stringed theory wrote: »


    Because some people feel that multiculturalism should not be forced upon any nation but should be a free choice?

    ....what does the admission of refugees have to do with multiculturalism?


  • #686
    stringed theory
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    Because they are from various Asian and African cultures and will either create an ethnic minority where none existed before or bolster an existing one.
    I think it can be assumed that the great majority who arrive as refugees and who are allowed to disperse will stay in Europe permanently. It really doesn't matter if they are judged to be "genuine refugees" or economic migrants. They will stay, legally or illegally, and eventually bring in their extended families, prosper in their own terms, and multiply.


  • #687
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    stringed theory wrote: »
    Because they are from various Asian and African cultures and will either create an ethnic minority where none existed before or bolster an existing one..

    Hardly the end of the world. You realise that multiculturalism is normally some sort of policy as opposed to just having different ethnicities in the same state


  • #688
    stringed theory
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hardly the end of the world. You realise that multiculturalism is normally some sort of policy as opposed to just having different ethnicities in the same state

    Multiple cultures living side by side can be a real asset depending on who they are and what controls are in place to prevent the dominant culture that attracted emigrants in the first place from being overwhelmed. This is about countries controlling immigration, instead of people traffickers and the vagaries of foreign wars.

    And yeah, multiculturalism is an actual philosophy, born in the USA in it's modern form because of the absolute necessity to integrate massive preexisting minorities. Sometimes I think it's misapplied in Europe. California with a majority of Hispanics or Asians would still be California as long as the institutions survived. Ireland in the same situation would cease to make any sense.


  • #689
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Why? So people stop dying at sea trying to get to Europe.

    More died last night....no more die trying to get to Australia.

    You support policies that result in dead babies at sea?

    Judge polices on their results not their intentions....that's your first mistake.....Pretty common among lefties....We all used to think like that in our early 20s so nothing to be ashamed off but unfortunately your support for these polices is killing people.

    Considering how many refugees are willing to risk their lives in the crossing, it'd be very hard to dissuade them from making the journey. Remember, even as the EU made the crossing more dangerous (by replacing Italy's Mare Nostrum with the far more skeletal Operation Triton), the numbers of arrivals continued to rise.

    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 (and fleeing a regime so oppressive, its known as the North Korea on the Red Sea)
    They're fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Mediterranean despite the huge risks involved. It'd be very hard to dissuade them without us actively killing them.
    stringed theory wrote: »
    I think it can be assumed that the great majority who arrive as refugees and who are allowed to disperse will stay in Europe permanently. It really doesn't matter if they are judged to be "genuine refugees" or economic migrants. They will stay, legally or illegally, and eventually bring in their extended families, prosper in their own terms, and multiply.

    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.


  • #690
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Considering how many refugees are willing to risk their lives in the crossing, it'd be very hard to dissuade them from making the journey.

    Not really. Just copy the Australian policy. As I said, no one dies at sea trying to enter Australia anymore....they used to when the policy was the same as the current EU policy...It's pretty clear. I don't see how it cannot be.
    Remember, even as the EU made the crossing more dangerous (by replacing Italy's Mare Nostrum with the far more skeletal Operation Triton), the numbers of arrivals continued to rise.

    Remember the EU has not copied Australia's policy. Actually Merkel has more or less done the opposite.

    Seriously, if they just use the same policy less people will die....or perhaps zero as in Australia's case.
    I'm not an expert on who the migrants arriving in Australia are

    But that never stopped you from holding a bias even though you understand only one side of the story?

    the vast majority of European arrivals are fleeing from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (and thus fleeing civil war) or are Eritrean (and fleeing a regime so oppressive, its known as the North Korea on the Red Sea)
    They're fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Mediterranean despite the huge risks involved. It'd be very hard to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

    Majority of asylum seekers to Australia where from Afghanistan (and thus fleeing civil war), Iran (and fleeing a regime so oppressive) and Sri Lanka (fleeing the Sri Lankan Civil War)

    They were fleeing war and totalitarianism and are willing to take their chances on the Indian Ocean despite the huge risks involved. It' was very easy (as seen in the current Australian policy) to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

    I recommend you please stop supporting a policy that is resulting in deaths at sea.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Not really. Just copy the Australian policy. As I said, no one dies at sea trying to enter Australia anymore....they used to when the policy was the same as the current EU policy...It's pretty clear. I don't see how it cannot be.
    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.
    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Remember the EU has not copied Australia's policy. Actually Merkel has more or less done the opposite.

    Seriously, if they just use the same policy less people will die....or perhaps zero as in Australia's case.
    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.
    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.
    Paul Barrett, a former secretary of Australia’s defence department, said turning back asylum-seeker vessels to Libya was far different from turning them back to Indonesia.

    “One immediate difference is that when we turn back boats to Indonesia, objectionable as that policy is, we know the Indonesians aren’t going to shoot them when they come back,” he said. “If they’ve fled Iraq or Afghanistan they’ve got no rights in Indonesia, so they need to move on to a country where they can retain the benefit of the Refugee convention. “Whereas if you turn around boats that are fleeing from Libya and send them straight back to Libya you’re injecting them straight back into the danger where they’ve fled.”
    source

    Likewise the BBC notes the following
    First, the numbers in Europe are far greater. Last year 170,000 people tried to cross the Mediterranean. EU officials believe that number could increase rapidly. Fabrice Leggeri the executive director of Frontex, the EU agency responsible for protecting Europe's external borders, told the Italian news agency Ansa that "anywhere between 500,000 to a million people" are ready to leave from Libya. It's not just a question of scale. Whereas countries such as Indonesia have the capacity to cope with returned boat people, Libya with its chaotic civil conflict, does not.

    So it looks like your analogy is badly sourced. Maybe do a bit more research next time?


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    But that never stopped you from holding a bias even though you understand only one side of the story?
    What bias? That I'm highlighting the migration issue is different in the Mediterranean and South-East Asia?


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    It' was very easy (as seen in the current Australian policy) to dissuade them without us actively killing them.

    I recommend you please stop supporting a policy that is resulting in deaths at sea.
    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.


  • #692
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Lockstep wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?

    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".


  • #693
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    Evidently, the refugees aren't coming for the sugar or cake. They're coming to beg for crumbs.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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?
    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.

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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!
    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.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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".
    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.
    However, this also highlights that they are refugees, rather than migrants (like you claim)


  • #694
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I think most EU governments aren't interested in ceasing to accept asylum seekers, so I can't see the Australian policy being adopted.


  • #695
    stringed theory
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭stringed theory


    Lockstep wrote: »
    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?
    Lockstep wrote: »
    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.


  • #696
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.
    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.


  • #698
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Lockstep wrote: »
    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.
    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??

    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.
    Can you guarantee that the current muddled and overstretched resources in Europe are in any condition to tell the difference?

    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!
    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.
    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:
    1. Mostly Syrian
    2. Actually in need of refuge and not just fleeing a poorer life in a safe refugee camp,
    3. actually going to return to Syria when the conflict is resolved.


  • #699
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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??
    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.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Can you guarantee that the current muddled and overstretched resources in Europe are in any condition to tell the difference?
    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.

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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!
    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.

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    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
    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

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Mostly Syrian
    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.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Actually in need of refuge and not just fleeing a poorer life in a safe refugee camp
    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.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    actually going to return to Syria when the conflict is resolved.
    No such obligation exists under international law. So it would have no bearing on how states process the refugees.


  • #700
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Lockstep wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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.

    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 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.
    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.
    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.


    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.


  • #701
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement