IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

Something that has been on my mind for a long time now, is that while we keep discussing cultural matters for the most part, there is also the "they just want our money"-angle, where even the counter-argument often goes to "overall, immigrants pay more taxes than they get, and we all profit from them monetarily".

But I find this angle very interesting from other perspectives, for example the one where they are blamed for wanting to have a better life with more money or better job opportunities.
On the one hand this argument that they will take something away from us if they come seems to counter the typical capitalist argument that one person gaining wealth does not mean the wealth of another decreases. Even if you argue that they will get government money from our taxes, they WILL spend it on consumerist stuff that makes our companies earn more money and provide more jobs, no? I am aware that it's more complicated than that, but I'm trying to get at the basic assumption, is wealth relative or can we all get wealthier or is capitalism a lie after all? What do you believe?
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? I mean the argument usually implies that they have a bad character because they want to be wealthier. Who here does not want to be wealthier? Have you ever felt bad about getting job over another candidate? Are you content if you get a C at school while everybody else gets As and Bs? I can see this as some sort of realpolitik argument that if we can get ahead by locking them out, we should, but then the implication that they have bad character for opposing this attempt is hypocrisy because they just do the same thing we do, they just have a far less wealthy starting position at the beginning of the game. Which also seems a typical capitalist tactic, to blame all the problems on the poor, which is a good way to make the middle class accept that the rich slowly strip them of their money as well.

And a linky for reference: http://www.theguardian.com/business/...it-switzerland

It's "funny" how the poor are blamed for taking all the things away from the middle class when the rich get more and more of all our stuff every day.
And I think the Middle Class is complicit in this, it does not criticize the rich because its members hope to be rich themselves one day, it would be like criticizing their idols. So they/we pick on the poor instead because we don't want to be like them anyway and they are convenient targets. As we say in Germany "wenn zwei sich streiten, freut sich der dritte", roughly translated: "when two people fight, the third is happy".

[Viking]

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?

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

[Montmorency]

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

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

This shouldn't be difficult to grasp: 'Well, my home country is screwed and I cannot tolerate staying here any longer - I might even get killed! Where can I go to that is both safe and will provide good opportunities for myself and my children/family?'

Whether or not you think that makes the situation more acceptable is irrelevant, as that is the basic logic motivating all refugees traveling long distances to prosperous European countries.

[Papewaio]

Context is key. If they claim to be refugees, but wanting a good job is the real reason for migrating, then that's a status they shouldn't have.

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

[Husar]

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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?