Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

stringed theory · 18-11-2015 9:04pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Once again, your entire argument relies on a ridiculous argument: that refugee numbers will remain steady at the current peak rate for the next 85 years.

Might remain. Been there done that.

Lockstep wrote: »

Considering previous arrivals amounted to a fraction of the current number, it's a stretch to say the numbers will continue for the next few years, let alone the next 85..

Typically, you've ignored what I had to say about the recent unprecedented opening of maritime borders by Italy and Greece.

Lockstep wrote: »

If you can produce the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the numbers will remain stable for a sustained period of time, please provide it.

So I have to provide evidence and you don't? The only "evidence" you've provided is statistical, and relates to past events before the opening of Europe's borders. Of course there is no evidence about future migrant flows one way or the other.
But really, to address this issue you have to be able to consider the broad sweep of human history, which includes massive waves of migration. This might help you to escape the mental strait jacket you find yourself in.
In dealing with the future, statistics are not enough.

Lockstep wrote: »

Also, Europe does not have open borders.

Yes, Europe has open borders for people arriving by boat who look Asian or African. None of them are turned back. You knew that already, didn't you?

Lockstep wrote: »

Theoretically, it could happen. But theoretically Germany could declare war on France. It's happened before so it could happen again, for the next 85 years, right?

I think we have reached the end of our discussion. I'm sure you'll have the last word though!

Lockstep · 19-11-2015 1:34pm

stringed theory wrote: »

Might remain. Been there done that.
Typically, you've ignored what I had to say about the recent unprecedented opening of maritime borders by Italy and Greece.
So I have to provide evidence and you don't? The only "evidence" you've provided is statistical, and relates to past events before the opening of Europe's borders. Of course there is no evidence about future migrant flows one way or the other.
But really, to address this issue you have to be able to consider the broad sweep of human history, which includes massive waves of migration. This might help you to escape the mental strait jacket you find yourself in.
In dealing with the future, statistics are not enough.

If all you can do is bleat that refugee numbers might remain at the current levels for 85 years, then I'm not sure what else I can say here. Current refugee levels are unprecedented. The idea that they'll remain at this level for years, let alone decades has no basis in fact. Only paranoia.
You made a claim: the onus is on you to back it up.

stringed theory wrote: »

Yes, Europe has open borders for people arriving by boat who look Asian or African. None of them are turned back. You knew that already, didn't you?

Have they?
Europe continues to deport people
All Europe is doing is permitting people to arrive and claim asylum. Which is what they've always done. When they fail, they can be deported. Which is what's happening.

Lockstep · 19-11-2015 1:39pm

gallag wrote: »

What if the numbers double? Or quadruple? Why do you assume the numbers will only go down?

What if they go up by 1000%? What if tomorrow, every single African tries to arrive in Europe?

Given that these numbers are unprecedented, I find it very hard to believe they'll remain steady for a sustained period of time or increase. Previous years saw refugee numbers in the tens, not hundreds of thousands.

Of course, if you've any evidence that refugee numbers will stay like this, please feel free to provide a source.

gallag · 21-11-2015 1:38pm

Lockstep wrote: »

What if they go up by 1000%? What if tomorrow, every single African tries to arrive in Europe?

Given that these numbers are unprecedented, I find it very hard to believe they'll remain steady for a sustained period of time or increase. Previous years saw refugee numbers in the tens, not hundreds of thousands.

Of course, if you've any evidence that refugee numbers will stay like this, please feel free to provide a source.

And if I had said last year that the current migration crises would happen you would have said..................

Lockstep · 22-11-2015 12:28am

gallag wrote: »

And if I had said last year that the current migration crises would happen you would have said..................

Then I'd have asked you what your basis was for claiming this. Unless you had inside knowledge for the WFP funding crisis or something.

View · 22-11-2015 3:38pm

Before anyone makes assumptions about Africa, it is worth bearing in mind how they are actually doing today:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/12/blogs/graphic-detail/20150103_gdm200_1.png

fly_agaric · 22-11-2015 6:04pm

View wrote: »

Before anyone makes assumptions about Africa, it is worth bearing in mind how they are actually doing today:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/12/blogs/graphic-detail/20150103_gdm200_1.png

That's positive but zero multiplied by any number is still...zero.
I think the Asian tiger would have had double-digit annual growth when their economies were taking off. That's the sort of growth Africa needs to be seeing, especially given its population growth.

jackofalltrades · 22-11-2015 10:01pm

Lockstep wrote: »

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

You're having a laugh right? This is a global problem.

And the above passage you quoted doesn't take away from the fact that the US has problems with extremists.

K-9 · 22-11-2015 10:17pm

gallag wrote: »

And if I had said last year that the current migration crises would happen you would have said..................

Then you are assuming that the EU and member countries will do nothing about such an influx. If the current crisis becomes the norm Governments will not be able to take the same numbers in every year, that will be a political reality as shown by France, Hungary and others. Politicians will still face elections and if popular opinion says numbers are becoming a problem then..........

View · 22-11-2015 10:55pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

That's positive but zero multiplied by any number is still...zero.

Except, of course, Africa's starting point isn't zero since that would mean there was no economic activity of any sort anywhere in Africa. :-)

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think the Asian tiger would have had double-digit annual growth when their economies were taking off. That's the sort of growth Africa needs to be seeing, especially given its population growth.

And parts of Africa are experiencing that sort of growth and will improve accordingly. You know a bit like us having, at last, fast growth and falling unemployment while Greece is still struggling to even begin to get things moving in a positive direction.

View · 22-11-2015 11:12pm

K-9 wrote: »

Then you are assuming that the EU and member countries will do nothing about such an influx. If the current crisis becomes the norm

It won't. The current crisis is being driven by conflict in countries such as Syria and an unusually high number of such crises around the world. Hence there is little likelihood of such a number of crises continuing on an annual basis over the medium to long term.

kettlehead · 23-11-2015 7:24am

View wrote: »

It won't. The current crisis is being driven by conflict in countries such as Syria and an unusually high number of such crises around the world. Hence there is little likelihood of such a number of crises continuing on an annual basis over the medium to long term.

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

Lockstep · 23-11-2015 11:01am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You're having a laugh right? This is a global problem.

And the above passage you quoted doesn't take away from the fact that the US has problems with extremists.

Well that depends on the country, doesn't it? Different Muslim populations have different levels of extremism.
The source clearly shows that US Muslims are not much of a risk of extremism: they're far wealthier and better integrated than their European counterparts. Especially when the majority of US terrorist attacks are by non-Muslims

Lockstep · 23-11-2015 11:06am

kettlehead wrote: »

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

Actually, it's 52%
Presumably, you're going by the Eurostat statistics, which predate the refugee crisis's peak levels: they only go as far as June, with January-June refugee numbers amounting to just 17% of 2015's total arrivals.

JPNelsforearm · 23-11-2015 12:07pm

View wrote: »

Before anyone makes assumptions about Africa, it is worth bearing in mind how they are actually doing today:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/12/blogs/graphic-detail/20150103_gdm200_1.png

Africa is still barely industrialised, until they can industrialise and challenge China and India, it will struggle as a continent.
http://africanarguments.org/2014/05/01/nigerias-economic-transition-reveals-deep-structural-distortions-by-zainab-usman/

View · 23-11-2015 3:11pm

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

jackofalltrades · 23-11-2015 3:17pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Well that depends on the country, doesn't it? Different Muslim populations have different levels of extremism.

So are you planning to prove that extremism in the Muslim community isn't a global problem?

The source clearly shows that US Muslims are not much of a risk of extremism: they're far wealthier and better integrated than their European counterparts.

"But that's not really a problem for the United States."
So on some level it's a problem and remember this is just a journalists opinion.
Does it show that the US Muslim community doesn't have a problem with extremism. No it doesn't.

View · 23-11-2015 3:25pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Africa is still barely industrialised, until they can industrialise and challenge China and India, it will struggle as a continent.
http://africanarguments.org/2014/05/01/nigerias-economic-transition-reveals-deep-structural-distortions-by-zainab-usman/

I am not saying it is easy for them (just as it wasn't for anyone else). Instead I am pointing out it is happening already and Africa in twenty five years time is likely to be quite different from today, never mind in fifty years time.

We, especially, in Ireland, shouldn't sneer. I once met someone who, as a child of someone who set up a MNC manufacturing plant in the midlands here in the 60s, saw locals all walking a long-ish distance to work in their first month, cycling to work a month later and driving to work a year later. Just as that one manufacturing plant had a big impact here way back then, you can be certain that their African equivalents will have an equally big (or larger) impact there.

View · 23-11-2015 3:27pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So are you planning to prove that extremism in the Muslim community isn't a global problem?

The onus lies with you to prove it is a global problem, not on others to disprove your assertion.

JPNelsforearm · 23-11-2015 3:29pm

View wrote: »

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

But in reality its next to impossible to deport them, see the massive backlog in the legal system currently, which then continues onto Europe leading to them hanging around. And even then, the Gardai cannot enter the "homes" of people who are here illegally, to deport them.
Or, its like the British/EU system, where people enter the country and "disappear".
Once you accept people, especially a large mass of people, on your territory, its next to impossible to get rid of them(unless you have the testicular fortitude of a Donald Trump to call it as it is).

jackofalltrades · 23-11-2015 3:43pm

View wrote: »

The onus lies with you to prove it is a global problem, not on others to disprove your assertion.

I'm not asking anybody to disprove my assertion, I'm asking them to backup theirs.

JPNelsforearm · 23-11-2015 4:27pm

View wrote: »

I am not saying it is easy for them (just as it wasn't for anyone else). Instead I am pointing out it is happening already and Africa in twenty five years time is likely to be quite different from today, never mind in fifty years time.

We, especially, in Ireland, shouldn't sneer. I once met someone who, as a child of someone who set up a MNC manufacturing plant in the midlands here in the 60s, saw locals all walking a long-ish distance to work in their first month, cycling to work a month later and driving to work a year later. Just as that one manufacturing plant had a big impact here way back then, you can be certain that their African equivalents will have an equally big (or larger) impact there.

Im not sneering, merely pointing out that Africans themselves point out that they are having massive problems industrialising due to India and China, For examples look at the linen/garment industry. The African "boom" is being driven by services and resources, they need to industrialise, but its not happening for them.

Lockstep · 23-11-2015 4:31pm

View wrote: »

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

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

Lockstep · 23-11-2015 4:36pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So are you planning to prove that extremism in the Muslim community isn't a global problem?

I don't need to: extremism is certainly a problem within elements of the Muslim community around the world. To say this is a global problem is fairly ridiculous. Unless you can prove otherwise?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

"But that's not really a problem for the United States."
So on some level it's a problem and remember this is just a journalists opinion.
Does it show that the US Muslim community doesn't have a problem with extremism. No it doesn't.

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

The source clearly shows that US Muslims are not much of a risk of extremism

RDM_83 again · 23-11-2015 5:19pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Well that depends on the country, doesn't it? Different Muslim populations have different levels of extremism.
The source clearly shows that US Muslims are not much of a risk of extremism: they're far wealthier and better integrated than their European counterparts. Especially when the majority of US terrorist attacks are by non-Muslims

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

Nodin · 23-11-2015 5:36pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

View · 23-11-2015 5:38pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm not asking anybody to disprove my assertion, I'm asking them to backup theirs.

You are the one making the assertion there is a "global problem", it is up to you you to back that up.

Either you can prove it or you can't...

View · 23-11-2015 5:39pm

Lockstep wrote: »

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

You are confusing me with another poster, I think.

View · 23-11-2015 5:43pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im not sneering, merely pointing out that Africans themselves point out that they are having massive problems industrialising due to India and China, For examples look at the linen/garment industry. The African "boom" is being driven by services and resources, they need to industrialise, but its not happening for them.

Africa currently is experiencing a mini-investment boom due largely to Chinese investment as the Chinese off-shore some of their manufacturing to cheaper Africa countries, so industrialisation is happening.

Second, I amn't convinced that a country must "industrialise" in the classical "industrial revolution" sense as many jobs in the modern high-tech and banking industries would count as "service" jobs if I remember rightly.

View · 23-11-2015 5:46pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But in reality its next to impossible to deport them, see the massive backlog in the legal system currently, which then continues onto Europe leading to them hanging around. And even then, the Gardai cannot enter the "homes" of people who are here illegally, to deport them.
Or, its like the British/EU system, where people enter the country and "disappear".
Once you accept people, especially a large mass of people, on your territory, its next to impossible to get rid of them(unless you have the testicular fortitude of a Donald Trump to call it as it is).

No, it isn't impossible to deport them. Both it and voluntary repatriations happen all the time.

There is unquestionably a need to increase the rate of (non-voluntary) deportations for failed applicants and the member states have already agreed to do so.

RDM_83 again · 23-11-2015 6:31pm

Nodin wrote: »

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

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

kettlehead · 23-11-2015 10:16pm

View wrote: »

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

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

jackofalltrades · 23-11-2015 11:20pm

Lockstep wrote: »

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

Bit of a change from:

Lockstep wrote: »

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

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

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

Lockstep wrote: »

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

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

Nodin · 24-11-2015 6:52am

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

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

RDM_83 again · 24-11-2015 7:44am

Nodin wrote: »

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

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

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

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

kettlehead · 24-11-2015 8:04am

Nodin wrote: »

Any economic benefit would be besides the point.

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

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 10:45am

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 10:53am

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 10:56am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Bit of a change from:

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

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

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

RDM_83 again · 24-11-2015 12:01pm

Lockstep wrote: »

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

On phone so will be short

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

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

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

Nodin · 24-11-2015 12:33pm

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

RDM_83Again wrote:

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 12:44pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

On phone so will be short

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

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

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

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

If you have any further studies, please provide them.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

RDM_83 again · 24-11-2015 1:34pm

Lockstep wrote: »

It's not just public spending though:

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

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

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

If you have any further studies, please provide them.

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 1:43pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

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

kettlehead · 24-11-2015 1:44pm

Lockstep wrote: »

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

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

kettlehead · 24-11-2015 1:49pm

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

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

Nodin · 24-11-2015 1:58pm

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 1:59pm

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

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

Lockstep · 24-11-2015 2:05pm

kettlehead wrote: »

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

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

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

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

kettlehead · 24-11-2015 2:28pm

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

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

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

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

Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Comments