IMMIGRATION thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I hear Germany is expecting 1.5 million Asylum applications this year.

Remember those back of the envelop calculations I did a few pages back?

Yeah... told you so.

[Husar]

So I hear Germany is expecting 1.5 million Asylum applications this year.

Remember those back of the envelop calculations I did a few pages back?

Yeah... told you so.

Emperor Merkel will distribute them around the EU.
Some of them may leave the internment camps themselves when they hear how long it will take until they can get anywhere with this.
The German government promised faster processes from start to end, but the way they delivered this was by postponing the start of the processes. You know, people will figure out that they have to live in a hall full of people for three years before their application process begin, will not be allowed to work legally and will have to beg the government for food every week. This will then lead to problems and I wouldn't be surprised if one million of them then force their way onto ferries to Britain or something like that. We will see how it goes on next years, will we get 3 million more or will they go directly to Sweden and the Netherlands because they heard the conditions in Germany are horrible?

Our next chancellor may then be the one who promises to build a fence around Europe and make Assad pay for it. If he promises to make the Saudis pay for it, I'll vote for him, too.

[Fragony]

Conditions aren't any better here, we only had a few thousands so far but there are no homes for them. The Netherlands are already too densily populated as it is, takes years before you can get a house if you can't buy.

[Gilrandir]

You know, people will figure out that they have to live in a hall full of people for three years before their application process begin, will not be allowed to work legally and will have to beg the government for food every week.

And what had they expected? They will have all they are supposed to: SAFE shelter and FREE food UNTIL THE SITUATION AT HOME ALLOWS THEM TO RETURN. These are all refugees can hope for. If they clamor for other benefits - well, here they miraculously turn into immigrants. And immigrants shouldn't have anything for free. So they have to opt for the choice - to stay refugees and enjoy hospitality of the gracious Europeans or to become immigrants and face the reality of modern capitalism.

This will then lead to problems and I wouldn't be surprised if one million of them then force their way onto ferries to Britain or something like that.

Judging from the rhetorics of the British government and seeing the way the tunnel posse is fended off, I strongly doubt they will find a warmer welcome on the Albion.

[Husar]

And what had they expected? They will have all they are supposed to: SAFE shelter and FREE food UNTIL THE SITUATION AT HOME ALLOWS THEM TO RETURN. These are all refugees can hope for. If they clamor for other benefits - well, here they miraculously turn into immigrants. And immigrants shouldn't have anything for free. So they have to opt for the choice - to stay refugees and enjoy hospitality of the gracious Europeans or to become immigrants and face the reality of modern capitalism.

I was talking about the standard ASYLUM SEEKER process, they have not turned into immigrants in Germany. It's just that our system is not fast enough for so many people and they are not allowed to do much until after their asylum has been granted. Of course it can also not be granted, in which case they will be sent back. They are only allowed to face the realities of modern capitalism once they have been granted residence in some way, the government does not allow anyone without a residence permit to legally work in Germany. Of course both the asylum seekers as well as the ones who try to avoid registration and enter illegally can try to work illegally, but some of those may easily end up in criminal circles, both as victims and as perpetrators. I'm just not sure what you are talking about regarding asylum seekers vs immigrants since the application for asylum in Germany is usually not the nicest process and when you succeed you are usually subject to the same capitalism as an immigrant unless you want to live relatively miserable.

Judging from the rhetorics of the British government and seeing the way the tunnel posse is fended off, I strongly doubt they will find a warmer welcome on the Albion.

So do I, but will it stop them?

[Viking]

The only fact (not opinion) that could be said to be in disagreement with what I've said is this, about Zawiya:

Qaddafi’s forces commenced a massive counteroffensive on March 7. Within two days, government troops had retaken Ras Lanuf in the east, the biggest mountain town of Gharyan in the west, and Zawiya near the capital.

Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:

Libyan state television said the town had been retaken by pro-Gaddafi forces, although later reports spoke of "pockets of resistance".

In other words, Zawiyah took several days to recapture.

Ras Lanuf and Brega were previously captured by the rebels:

Until now, armed but untrained fighters had managed to easily overthrow military garrisons in town after town: first Ajdabiya, then Brega, and finally Ras Lanuf, which no one expected would fall easily.

So the regime lost Ajdabiya, Brega and Ras Lanuf quickly - and the rebels lost them quickly, too. There was symmetry.

You posted a list with the country of origin of the refugees in order to show that the civil war in Libya did not allow for more refugees to come to Europe as very few of them are from Libya.

No, the point is that Syria is the number one producer of refugees, while Libya produces very few. People leaving through Libya would have the same reasons for leaving their home country without the war in Libya (with the possible exception of Mali, who ranks as number 16 - but those numbers might have dropped for this year). Evidently, Libyans feel more confident in staying in their home country than citizens of many other countries - including countries without war.

[...] the good Libyans who wanted non-violent change

A trivially false dichotomy.

[AE Bravo]

Here, all the things you said wrong:

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net.

This comes off as you saying that the regime putting down the rebels is a bad outcome for Libya, and more innocent lives would be at stake.

One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.

Weapons and air support as well as NATO countries (with French taking the lead) formally recognizing the rebels as the representatives of Libya gained them the advantage over the regime.

Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory

No reason to imagine since he had one last city to take over and the rebels lost with minimal civilian casualties on the regime's part. No evidence of indiscriminate killing under Qaddafi's regime.

perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Gulf states would not have had the political authority to intervene without a greenlight from NATO countries. Recognition of rebels from the west and NATO's political objective to OVERTHROW QADDAFI made Qatar confident about funding Islamists and fulfilling this mission by any means.

The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power

The objective in and of itself was a failure. Responsibility to protect, political imprudence, and no long-term commitment to maintain national security after outright regime change makes it a model for failure.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

False.

So...

Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:

IIRC, the bbc is the only news agency in the world that apologized for its dishonest coverage of Libya. Even in spite of this I wouldn't take bbc's info over Kuperman's analysis.

In other words, Zawiyah took several days to recapture.

Ras Lanuf and Brega were previously captured by the rebels:

Aljazeera is owned by Qatar, the second main culprit in Libya's disaster.

So the regime lost Ajdabiya, Brega and Ras Lanuf quickly - and the rebels lost them quickly, too. There was symmetry.

Right up until Qaddafi won and weapons were put down. The intervention began shortly after to interrupt the restoration of order across the country. Rebels were on their way to Egypt until military intervention was announced.

A trivially false dichotomy.

It's as simple as it gets and it's true.

[Husar]

No, the point is that Syria is the number one producer of refugees, while Libya produces very few. People leaving through Libya would have the same reasons for leaving their home country without the war in Libya (with the possible exception of Mali, who ranks as number 16 - but those numbers might have dropped for this year). Evidently, Libyans feel more confident in staying in their home country than citizens of many other countries - including countries without war.

Still missing the point I see. It is much harder for a lot of people to even come to Europe without any border patrols or law and order in northern African states. That they may have the same reasons to leave the country is irrelevant if they cannot get into the Mediterranean because Libyan security forces don't let them. Yes, there are other ways, but those are not simple either, but a wide open Libya where lots of traffickers gather with little resistance is.

[Fragony]

Looks like there is no more patience for Merkel's messias-complex.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle4578486.ece

I aprove even if it is really harsh and no doubt people who gambled everything will be really screwed, but they should have stayed at home. If you disaprove and my stance disgusts that's fine I won't take it personally.

[Viking]

This comes off as you saying that the regime putting down the rebels is a bad outcome for Libya, and more innocent lives would be at stake.

It's a bad outcome for those innocent people who end up arrested, tortured and possibly killed by the security services - things that happen in closed dictatorships.

Weapons and air support as well as NATO countries (with French taking the lead) formally recognizing the rebels as the representatives of Libya gained them the advantage over the regime.

The arming was the point, because you said NATO effectively armed islamists. The initial uprising, long before NATO's intervention, provided plenty of weapons for anyone to loot.

No reason to imagine since he had one last city to take over

He didn't, just as your source points out. Your source just claims that it "surely" would be easy to recapture them without actually going into much detail for why (at least not in the quotes you provided).

No evidence of indiscriminate killing under Qaddafi's regime.

Yeah, none at all.

Gulf states would not have had the political authority to intervene without a greenlight from NATO countries. Recognition of rebels from the west and NATO's political objective to OVERTHROW QADDAFI made Qatar confident about funding Islamists and fulfilling this mission by any means.

Very unlikely - look to Syria and Yemen. How much of a guarantee does Qatar have that their side in Syria is going to win? None at all, really.

The objective in and of itself was a failure.

We disagree on what the primary objective was.

False.

Misrata and Zintani rebels didn't shoot at each other, they shot at Gaddafi's troops. Infighting came later when there was no enemy left to unite against.

IIRC, the bbc is the only news agency in the world that apologized for its dishonest coverage of Libya. Even in spite of this I wouldn't take bbc's info over Kuperman's analysis.

Aljazeera is owned by Qatar, the second main culprit in Libya's disaster.

I don't think you followed this war closely as it unfolded. This is fairly basic knowledge about what happened - any news source will tell you a similar story.

Rebels were on their way to Egypt until military intervention was announced.

No, they even fielded their fighter jet in the defence of Benghazi (and apparently shot it down themselves).

It's as simple as it gets and it's true.

"all X are bad" is kindergarten-level of debate.

Still missing the point I see. It is much harder for a lot of people to even come to Europe without any border patrols or law and order in northern African states. That they may have the same reasons to leave the country is irrelevant if they cannot get into the Mediterranean because Libyan security forces don't let them. Yes, there are other ways, but those are not simple either, but a wide open Libya where lots of traffickers gather with little resistance is.

No, the point is not the number of migrants arriving in Europe, but where they come from. If a country has many people emigrating, that tells you something about the current state of the country - at least relative to other countries.

Blaming the migrant crisis on NATO's intervention doesn't make much sense, because then either

a) you believe that the migrants don't really need to leave their home countries; which in turn implies that they are being reckless in doing so anyway. Reckless adults should take responsibility for their own recklessness

b) you believe that the migrants really should leave their home countries; in which case it would be a good thing that NATO's intervention made it easier for them to do so

[Gilrandir]

I'm just not sure what you are talking about regarding asylum seekers vs immigrants since the application for asylum in Germany is usually not the nicest process and when you succeed you are usually subject to the same capitalism as an immigrant unless you want to live relatively miserable.

While they are still refugees/asylum seekers they are given everything for free. When they have been accepted as "new Germans" the torrent of charity lavished on them stops and they will have to fend for themselves in the cruel capitalist world of joblessness, high rent, costly medical care and so on. So on balance, who knows, perhaps, they are better off now.

So do I, but will it stop them?

Hitherto they are being stopped by the French and probably British police sealing both ends of the Tunnel. We'll see when they come up with the idea of building/hiring boats or something.

[Husar]

Are they still evicting German nationals so they can house migrants?

As I keep saying, we are governed by sociopaths.

They expect about 1 million Germans to freeze to death this winter, but they're mostly lower class and alcoholics, the Syrians are worth more to the industry.

While they are still refugees/asylum seekers they are given everything for free. When they have been accepted as "new Germans" the torrent of charity lavished on them stops and they will have to fend for themselves in the cruel capitalist world of joblessness, high rent, costly medical care and so on. So on balance, who knows, perhaps, they are better off now.

Exactly, you show great knowledge of how Germany works.

Hitherto they are being stopped by the French and probably British police sealing both ends of the Tunnel. We'll see when they come up with the idea of building/hiring boats or something.

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

[Pannonian]

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

Do you mean the one at Kiel, or the one at Scapa Flow?

[Gilrandir]

Maybe Merkel will give them our Navy?

Traditionally, their cockleboats are to be as unsafe as they can help. In that case the pity will conquer and the British will escort them to Buckingham palace and allow to camp in Hyde Park. Otherwise they will rush en masse in the direction of Hastings and who knows what may follow then - coronation of Raheem the Conqueror?