IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

US announced we will take another 30,000 refugees over two years. And another 100,000 in 2017, if I remember correctly.

If America wants to be of any use I would prefer it if they use their political power for shelter in the region. The people who need help the most don't have the means to go to Europe.

[Viking]

It is simply a fact that virtually-all refugees to the First World are also economic migrants.

Irrelevant to the point. It was implicitly understood in what I wrote that an immediate threat to their life is not among the reasons for migrating.

So you'd prefer refugees who don't want to work then?

They aren't refugees, but work migrants. Work migrants can be returned if they don't have any work. Refugees can't.

[Montmorency]

Irrelevant to the point. It was implicitly understood in what I wrote that an immediate threat to their life is not among the reasons for migrating.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point. Maybe we're hung up over what constitutes or qualifies as a refugee?

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

[Fragony]

I don't see how that's relevant to my point. Maybe we're hung up over what constitutes or qualifies as a refugee?

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

There are perfectly viable ways, there are European ambasades that have to take any aplication into consideration. They can be helped from there should it be needed. Most real refugees are just glad they are safe though, Turkey has been really generous to those who are really in need and can't afford Nikes and iPhones.

[Montmorency]

There are perfectly viable ways, there are European ambasades that have to take any aplication into consideration. They can be helped from there should it be needed. Most real refugees are just glad they are safe though, Turkey has been really generous to those who are really in need and can't afford Nikes and iPhones.

I agree in the sense that the EU needs to implement some common policies to deal with the issue of undocumented migrants such that they can be stopped from hiking cross-country or swamping train stations.

The Dublin regulation and haphazard management of the situation makes it so that refugees tend to move away or avoid authorities if they think that registration will entail a hiatus wherever they are at the moment. End Dublin, identify everyone, get them to the best shelters we can find or erect on short notice - and you get the crisis sorted, at least for the next few months. It buys time to figure out what's going to be done with all these people.

[Fragony]

I agree in the sense that the EU needs to implement some common policies to deal with the issue of undocumented migrants such that they can be stopped from hiking cross-country or swamping train stations.

The Dublin regulation and haphazard management of the situation makes it so that refugees tend to move away or avoid authorities if they think that registration will entail a hiatus wherever they are at the moment. End Dublin, identify everyone, get them to the best shelters we can find or erect on short notice - and you get the crisis sorted, at least for the next few months. It buys time to figure out what's going to be done with all these people.

Sounds perfectly sound to me

[Viking]

They are economic migrants, but they also qualify as refugees, and that they are economic migrants does not cancel out their refugee status. That's what I'm saying, in effect.

I am considerings scenarios where they would never have had any refugee status that could be nulled out in the first place. The definition of 'refugee' is relevant here, yes.

[Gilrandir]

On the other hand it seems as though people are in this sense just blaming them for having the same greed we do, if you say they just come here for the good jobs, are you saying that wanting a good job is a bad thing?

It is not a bad thing per se, it is just wrong to demand it in the way they do. I mean more qualified and educated people from other countries may have to prove they want a job in Gemany and are qualified enough to get one, spend money and time getting a permit or a visa or both and may be denied either and stay where they were still wishing for a job in Germany.

The refugees/immigrants' modus operandi is dropping with their numerous family and relatives plop on Hauptbahnhof (or what it's called in Munich) and only then starting to prove anything. Moreover, they behave as if the country which they chose to afflict is obliged to feed them, shelter them, provide them with work and their kids with education; and they are much exasperated if they don't see the tables laid for them and money distributed at will in whatever place they might choose to grace with their presence.

If it were about fleeing from war, the first safe place (say, in Turkey or Greece) would suffice. So those who come to Europe's heartlands are immigrants, not refugees.

Just think: the Syrian conflict has been in evidence for 4 odd years and now it is not much hotter than, say, 2 or 3 years ago. Why are we witnessing the deluge right now, at this very moment?

[Fragony]

I am considerings scenarios where they would never have had any refugee status that could be nulled out in the first place. The definition of 'refugee' is relevant here, yes.

Yes, take in mind that only very few are from minorities that are at actual risk, some are. But most 'refugees' are sunni-mislims who aren't hunted down by fellow sunni-muslims. We should help the Kurds, the christians, the muslims of a different persuation.

[Husar]

They aren't refugees, but work migrants.

That's complete rubbish, if they flee from a war or another danger, then they are usually refugees.

The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

[Gilrandir]

That's complete rubbish, if they flee from a war or another danger, then they are usually refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

[Fragony]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

If they bring their problems with then I would rather call them colonists, a refugee flees from his problems, a migrant leaves the troubles behind, a colonist takes it with him. No shortage of colonists furiously screaming Alluha Akhbar.

[Husar]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

Maybe they're just fleeing from the horrible conditions in refugee camps in poor places which are completely overburdened?

[Fragony]

Maybe they're just fleeing from the horrible conditions in refugee camps in poor places which are completely overburdened?

Maybe they are not?

[Greyblades]

I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

[Fragony]

I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

yeah someone has a hand in the skirts that makes the Mona Lisa smile.

[Viking]

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html

That's one way of defining refugees.

I'm proabaly stating the obvious here, but I think that if a migration surge like the one we are seeing now can be caused merely by people wanting a better life, we would have seen it happen years ago.

In the case of Syrians, it is not merely the want for a better life. The war is a spark.

[Montmorency]

The momnet they are outside the counrty they are refugees. The moment they start to pick and choose the place where they will head to expressing their preferences depending on the welfare of that place they become migrants.

So they're both, glad you understand.

In the case of Syrians, it is not merely the want for a better life. The war is a spark.

I agree. In fact, this is a pillar of my position on technical dual-status.

What I see is that you would like them to be identified as non-refugees to avoid any obligations toward them. But isn't that a different question, what sort of obligations countries owe to refugees, and under what circumstances?

[Husar]

That's one way of defining refugees.

Yeh, it's not like a lot of countries agree with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...convention.PNG

[Tuuvi]

Just as one might object to a comparison to last days of the Roman empire, one might object to a comparison to the US.

The most obvious difference is that the US is nation of immigrants. With the exception of 'native' Americans, most Americans can say that their ancestors came from this or that European or African country at that or that time. That means new immigrants don't look that out of place in the US. In comparison, my own ancestors (minus some Danish ones) might have come to this area ~ 10 000 years ago. Most of the population in Europe have a connection to the countries they occupy through thousands of years. This creates a schism between new arrivals and ancient arrivals, unless there is assimilation.

Some other things:

- Europe is filling up - both literally and non-literally. Some places really are getting crowded, but there are also national parks (and more rural areas not legally recognised) that people want to preserve, necessary farmland, opposition to further urbanisation and areas that are simply inhospitable. I imagine things looked rather different in the US over a 100 years ago; both physically and in terms of attitudes.
- there is still a significant split in the US population between the original natives, the population of European origin and the population of African origin
- the cultures where the immigrants came from were typically not too different from the cultures that the current Americans themselves came from

That latter point seems especially relevant. I am not aware of Europeans not integrating properly in other European countries being a common problem (international criminals are a problem, but that's largely a separate topic - they take advantage of the open borders), despite there being significant migration internally in Europe.

As the picture shows some Americans felt the same about immigrants as many Europeans in this thread do today. It was believed that Southern and Eastern Europeans were incompatible with American culture and values and that the new wave of migrants threatened to destroy American society. We can look at the US today and see that the these immigrants were able to assimilate just fine but at the time Southern Europeans were seen to be as alien as Muslims are today.

I agree the two situations aren't exactly comparable, and as I said before I'm not trying to make an argument for unrestricted immigration, but the sentiments expressed by turn of the century Americans and modern Europeans are so similar I think they warrant consideration. Basically what I'm trying to say is Middle Eastern immigrants might not be as scary as we think they are.

Yes, take in mind that only very few are from minorities that are at actual risk, some are. But most 'refugees' are sunni-mislims who aren't hunted down by fellow sunni-muslims. We should help the Kurds, the christians, the muslims of a different persuation.

The Assad regime has been systematically murdering dissidents for years, and it bombs rebel held civilian areas to make them uninhabitable and force the residents to flee to regime held areas. Being a Sunni Muslim in Syria is no guarantee of safety. Not to mention the risk of getting caught in the crossfire that anyone living in a war zone faces.

[Fragony]

Sure enough, but it was that plumb eastblock farmhorse Merkel's blunder that spawned the horde of migrants, not going to call them refugees as most aren't. Migrants aren't exactly popular with the real refugees, what they ran away from is comming with them. Tensions are really high among them, and where they go. Rape and intimidation is rampant.

[Husar]

Sure enough, but it was that plumb eastblock farmhorse Merkel's blunder that spawned the horde of migrants

What blunder?

[Fragony]

What blunder?

Shelving the Dublin-treaty of course. That's what caused this unmanageble wave of migrants, not the civil-war. She realised her mistake by now and she leaves Romania and Croatia with the troubles. Even demands that other EU-members solve the problems, OR ELSE

[Husar]

Shelving the Dublin-treaty of course. That's what caused this unmanageble wave of migrants, not the civil-war. She realised her mistake by now and she leaves Romania and Croatia with the troubles. Even demands that other EU-members solve the problems, OR ELSE

That sounds like complete nonsense since she opened the border long after the border countries were already knee-deep in refugees and the huge numbers were already known. Thousands of people had already drowned by the time she did anything. What opened the floodgates was the lack of stable countries in the south and east of the Mediterranean. And at least in the south, it was caused by eh, Sarkozy and Cameron. Syria is the fault of Cheney, Sarkozy, Blair and Putin. You can't seriously believe that things Merkel says are the top news in Syria when the country is in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Some of them also come from the camps of course, mostly because they are not fond of spending the next 20 years of their lives in a tent without permission to get a job or find a proper home. It's easy to say refugees should accept that because at least they're safe now if you're not in their situation.

[Fragony]

That sounds like complete nonsense since she opened the border long after the border countries were already knee-deep in refugees and the huge numbers were already known. Thousands of people had already drowned by the time she did anything. What opened the floodgates was the lack of stable countries in the south and east of the Mediterranean. And at least in the south, it was caused by eh, Sarkozy and Cameron. Syria is the fault of Cheney, Sarkozy, Blair and Putin. You can't seriously believe that things Merkel says are the top news in Syria when the country is in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Some of them also come from the camps of course, mostly because they are not fond of spending the next 20 years of their lives in a tent without permission to get a job or find a proper home. It's easy to say refugees should accept that because at least they're safe now if you're not in their situation.

Shelterring one myself, don't lecture me, it's my own decision to do that. Merkel gave them a very big carrot, and it was heard, total rage on social-media, COME TO GERMANY!!! And they did. She is going to remembered for that, and not in the way she wanted.

[Viking]

What I see is that you would like them to be identified as non-refugees to avoid any obligations toward them. But isn't that a different question, what sort of obligations countries owe to refugees, and under what circumstances?

I suspect both elements might need some adjustment - what a refugee is, and how they should be treated.

Yeh, it's not like a lot of countries agree with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...convention.PNG

I didn't sign it. As with any topic, we are free to debate definitions..

I agree the two situations aren't exactly comparable, and as I said before I'm not trying to make an argument for unrestricted immigration, but the sentiments expressed by turn of the century Americans and modern Europeans are so similar I think they warrant consideration. Basically what I'm trying to say is Middle Eastern immigrants might not be as scary as we think they are.

Well, the Italian Mafia managed to hitch a ride with the Italian immigrants, and violent Islamism is hitching a ride with Muslim immigrants, so I can see some immediate similarities there.

[Fragony]

Open debate, wouldnd't that be nice if there would be such a thing

Juncker: most peple don't uderstand what we decide, if there isn't any protest/riots we will do what we wanted to. (vvery loose translation)

Just few quotes from druncke- I mean Junkcer https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker

not scary at all, not stupid either

[Husar]

Shelterring one myself, don't lecture me, it's my own decision to do that. Merkel gave them a very big carrot, and it was heard, total rage on social-media, COME TO GERMANY!!! And they did. She is going to remembered for that, and not in the way she wanted.

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? Or are you saying that you harbor a refugee and that you can somehow tell them apart? If so, are you harboring a family or one guy and aren't the guys coming without family all work migrants according to you?

I suspect both elements might need some adjustment - what a refugee is, and how they should be treated.

I didn't sign it. As with any topic, we are free to debate definitions..

Would you care to give us your definition then or are you just against the current one?

[Fragony]

You mean you harbor a migrant and complain online that Merkel invited them? [

Yeah I am pretty'much actually doing what you don't, all opinion. Nobody who is in need needs an opinion

[Husar]

Yeah I am pretty'much actually doing what you don't, all opinion. Nobody who is in need needs an opinion

What's your point? That poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote?