| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
in contrast, the immigrants/refugees do come from a fucked up place, but they fucked it up(maybe not directly and personally but they allowed the fuck up to happen, mostly by not giving a crap), or did nothing to stop it, prevent it, change it; yet no one is blaming them. they're seen as victims that need help, that should be helped because ... best thing i can come up with is that those fuckers waging the war need to pay for/take care of those refugees/immigrants. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 26 2015 18:02 SkelA wrote: I dont know how Asylum works in Germany but I can assure you ppl that need it the most are not getting it. Can you expand on this point? So are you really saying that when someone flees from war torn Syria and makes it to Germany they will be denied asylum? To me those are the people who need it most, so how exactly are they "not getting it"? Just because there are also cases of abuse doesn't mean that the system does not work for legitimate cases. | ||
|
SkelA
Macedonia13081 Posts
I read on some news site that Germany will take 800k refugees (dunno if true or not) but other countries like Slovakia dont wanna take migrants especially if they are muslim and Hungary is bulding 100km++ wall towards Serbia. The majority are from Syria but they are other from Pakistan,Afganistan and African countries and what will happen when there is no place for everyone? Alot of migrants are going though my country. Lemme give you a number how many crossed the border from 19 July till today. Syria - 38.050, Afganistan - 2.198, Iraq - 2.139, Pakistan - 1.398, Palestine - 576,Somalia - 564, Banglades - 327, Congo - 305, Nigeria - 163, Cameroon – 152, Erithrea - 142, Ethiopia - 109 . My point is that abusers gonna take up the spots for the real refugees from Syria. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10156 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On August 26 2015 21:32 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is it that the plurality of immigrants choose to make the thousand kilometers to find safe harbour; overwhelmingly to Germany and Sweden, rather than in safe countries in closer proximity? What are you talking about? 1.5 million Syrian refugees are in Jordan, another 1.5 m in Turkey for example. The number of refugees reaching the EU is tiny compared to the numbers in neighbor states of Syria and Iraq. Why is it that they do not apply for refugee status, as they are obliged to do, in the safe countries through which they travel to arrive in Northern Europe? Because asylum acceptance rates vary greatly for each group of refugees in all the EU countries! It is like an intransparent fucked-up lottery where win rates fluctuate constantly and depend heavily on where you buy your ticket.Also, as a refugee, if you know someone in a particular country of course you want to get there and not just semi-randomly pick the first piece of land you set your foot on. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18399 Posts
On August 26 2015 21:32 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is it that the plurality of immigrants choose to make the thousand kilometers to find safe harbour; overwhelmingly to Germany and Sweden, rather than in safe countries in closer proximity? Why is it that they do not apply for refugee status, as they are obliged to do, in the safe countries through which they travel to arrive in Northern Europe? In the early 1900s the brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful flights. Since then, the industry really took off! Amazingly, these fantastic machines can reach even deepest darkest Africa, the war-torn middle east and the inhospitable mountains of Afghanistan. Assuming that people who are fleeing a region and seeking asylum don't have money for a one-way plane ticket to <somewhere else> is incredibly ignorant. Most asylum seekers reaching Germany, The Netherlands, the US and even Brazil (I know a few) are not dirt poor, nor are they migrating in the hope of economic improvement. They are middle class who are getting the fuck out of Syria before their house gets bombed/blown up. Also the entire premise that the "people who need it most" are the ones who cannot escape is imho, complete nonsense. Why is a poor family more entitled to get the fuck out of Syria than a middle class or even rich family? Do you really think Al Nusra, ISIS or the Syrian Army is taking special care to not shoot their mortars at middle-class or rich suburbs, if the place has been taken by <insert whoever they are fighting right now>? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 26 2015 22:18 lord_nibbler wrote: What are you talking about? 1.5 million Syrian refugees are in Jordan, another 1.5 m in Turkey for example. The number of refugees reaching the EU is tiny compared to the numbers in neighbor states of Syria and Iraq. Because asylum acceptance rates vary greatly for each group of refugees in all the EU countries! It is like an intransparent fucked-up lottery where win rates fluctuate constantly and depend heavily on where you buy your ticket. Also, as a refugee, if you know someone in a particular country of course you want to get there and not just semi-randomly pick the first piece of land you set your foot on. It being the case that such refugees who choose the country of their refuge no longer qualify under the criteria of the 1951 convention, Germany would be perfectly within its rights to deny responsibility for applicants who cross over to its territory via another member within the European Union, i.e. via Austria, Hungary, and Greece, in accord with articles 6 & 7 of the Dublin Convention. The responsibility for examining an application for asylum shall be incumbent upon the Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the Member States, except where, after legally entering a Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa is waived, the alien lodges his or her application for asylum in another Member State in which the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived. In this case, the latter State shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum. There is no right for asylum seekers to play the odds on acceptance rates and social benefits within the framework of European territory; the responsibility lies at the point of entry, not at the volition of the "refugee." | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 26 2015 22:53 Plansix wrote: You can quote 60 year old rules, laws and treaties all day, but these people are showing up to the shores of Greece and other EU nations starved and wounded. I watched a video last night of some of them being rescued by the Greek Coast Guard. One woman has a still piece of shrapnel in her back. They traveled huge distances under conditions few of us will ever face. They are doing it because staying where they are will result in their death. The idea that the refugees of the violence in the Middle East are going to spend some time looking up what is the most viable country where they can legally seek asylum is straight up comical and demonstrates a complete lack of understand of why they are fleeing their homelands. Non sequitur; if a refugee elects to travel through several safe countries to reach a country of their volition, then it stands to reason that they are spending time "looking up" the most viable country, in which calculations other than personal safety are evident. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 26 2015 18:25 zatic wrote: Can you expand on this point? So are you really saying that when someone flees from war torn Syria and makes it to Germany they will be denied asylum? To me those are the people who need it most, so how exactly are they "not getting it"? Just because there are also cases of abuse doesn't mean that the system does not work for legitimate cases. The refugees that actually make it to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway are the ones who are able to raise enough money to pay for the trafficking. The ones without those resources (95% of Syrian refugees) are stuck in the neighbouring countries to the one they fled from. The refugees that need the help the most are thus not those who have the resources to make it to Northern Europe, but rather those that do not have those resources. Obviously we should help as many refugees as possible, but the question remains whether or not we help the most by importing them to Europe or by establishing better facilities in the neighbouring countries and help these countries (e.g. Jordan) carry the burden. It is also worth noting that apparently Europe is alone in solving this. Russia, Japan, Korea all do not want the refugees. Even the region itself is letting them down - Saudia Arabia has accepted 53 refugees - you read that right, FIFTY THREE. That is less refugees than Vejle, a Danish city with approx 60k citizens, has taken in. The rest of the Arabic League are doing no better really. To me the 95% of Syrian refugees are the ones we should focus on helping, partially by redirecting our resources, partially by making the Arabic League take some responsibility for once. EDIT: Interviews with human traffickers has plenty of times revealed that there is a very active selection of destination-countries among refugees. There are even 'infomercials' for why Northern European countries are good countries to seek asylum in. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18399 Posts
On August 26 2015 22:53 Plansix wrote: You can quote 60 year old rules, laws and treaties all day, but these people are showing up to the shores of Greece and other EU nations starved and wounded. I watched a video last night of some of them being rescued by the Greek Coast Guard. One woman has a still piece of shrapnel in her back. They traveled huge distances under conditions few of us will ever face. They are doing it because staying where they are will result in their death. The idea that the refugees of the violence in the Middle East are going to spend some time looking up what is the most viable country where they can legally seek asylum is straight up comical and demonstrates a complete lack of understand of why they are fleeing their homelands. Once again, patently false for the asylum seekers we are taling about. Sure, there are millions who are fleeing Kobane and other cities under siege, at the very last possible moment (literally, as the bombs are falling around them). These are the ones who flee into Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, on foot, and absolutely destitute. Most of the Syrian refugees reaching Germany, Sweden, or the US are not those. They are people who have watched their country crumble and collapse around them. They come from places like Homs, Aleppo and Damascus before the former two cities were completely flattened. They saw the war closing in on them and made a plan to flee. For instance, a family I know (from Aleppo) made the conscious decision to flee to Brazil, because they knew getting asylum would be easier than in most other countries they were looking at, and they knew someone here who encouraged them to come. This is the profile of the Syrian refugees in northern Europe. Northern Europe doesn't have to deal at all with the destitute millions running across the border with everything they own in a small backpack (and nor does the US, releasing a fancy press release that they are letting in a couple of thousand Syrian refugees). To get to northern Europe requires planning and money, and therefore by definition we are letting in middle class or rich Syrians, who are fleeing their home in an orderly manner. Note the important fact that they are still FLEEING THEIR HOME. They are no more, or less, deserving of asylum than the poor people who flock across the nearest border. They just happen to have more money and slightly better planning in their escape. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
The problem lies with governments turned into welfare providers, with citizens fighting over the scraps provided by it ("social rights"). It is more ridicule that the same people that claim that everyone has the right to government provided health, education, housing, etc. have no problem saying that refugees cannot even get into the country, let alone receive any benefits; the hipocrisy of the statists has no boundaries (from both left and right). For some reason THEY are entitled to other's wealth trough taxation and the government (because they share nationality? really?) but refugees are not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:00 MoltkeWarding wrote: Non sequitur; if a refugee elects to travel through several safe countries to reach a country of their volition, then it stands to reason that they are spending time "looking up" the most viable country, in which calculations other than personal safety are evident. Or they have been told that is the country they can get help or a job in. If you listen to the news reports, many of the refugees are working off of rumor and word of mouth. They are just desperate people looking for a place to start over in some way. They are not like you, sitting behind a computer reading the news and agreements between nations 60 years ago. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:08 Plansix wrote: Or they have been told that is the country they can get help or a job in. If you listen to the news reports, many of the refugees are working off of rumor and word of mouth. They are just desperate people looking for a place to start over in some way. They are not like you, sitting behind a computer reading the news and agreements between nations 60 years ago. So we are supposed to ignore rules just because they are a bit older? Hello to the US constitution, or something like that. Look at the debacle taking place at the Calais channel right now, for example. The refugees are very deliberately trying to pick countries in which they feel they are more likely to be accepted for asylum rather than stopping in the closest one. Of course one could be cynical and point out that they're also traveling to the countries which provide the most generous social security to people in need, but that'd be silly now, wouldn't it? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18399 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:08 GoTuNk! wrote: The idea that closing borders to anyone is acceptable is laughable to me. Moreover, closing borders to war refugees. The problem lies with governments turned into welfare providers, with citizens fighting over the scraps provided by it ("social rights"). It is more ridicule that the same people that claim that everyone has the right to government provided health, education, housing, etc. have no problem saying that refugees cannot even get into the country, let alone receive any benefits; the hipocrisy of the statists has no boundaries (from both left and right). For some reason THEY are entitled to other's wealth trough taxation and the government (because they share nationality? really?) but refugees are not. This is a separate problem entirely. However, there is a very real risk to a welfare state if it has too many people (ab)using the welfare systems and not enough people paying in. What surprises me is that people in Denmark, Sweden or The Netherlands, think that a couple of thousand "wealthy" and enterprising Syrians will be mooching off the welfare rather than contributing to it. These people had successful jobs before fleeing their homes, and while it will undoubtedly take a little while for them to get their bearings, there is no reason why they wouldn't find a job in their new country and be net contributors. And lets face it, the aging population is a FAR FAR FAR bigger threat to the welfare state than any immigration is. And in fact, immigration is a great way of rescuing the welfare state, because mostly able-bodied working-age people are the one tyring to migrate. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:08 Plansix wrote: Or they have been told that is the country they can get help or a job in. If you listen to the news reports, many of the refugees are working off of rumor and word of mouth. They are just desperate people looking for a place to start over in some way. They are not like you, sitting behind a computer reading the news and agreements between nations 60 years ago. It is understandable what they want and why they want it; they simply do not have a right to it. Asylum-seeking has a specific definition which joins certain irregular rights enjoyed by migrants with certain conditions. Those conditions do not include the stipulation that the lives of men must be happy, prosperous, successful or free of human agonies. One can be an ideological one-worlder, and muse about the unity of humanity, bemoan the unjustifiable artifices which are nations and states, assert the collective responsibility of everyone for everyone else, and the supremacy of the law of Antigone over the laws of men. If that is your a priori conception of ethics, then the subject at hand is merely a secondary assertion of something that looms deeper in your conscience, and should not distract you from the conscious statement of it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:20 dismiss wrote: So we are supposed to ignore rules just because they are a bit older? Hello to the US constitution, or something like that. Look at the debacle taking place at the Calais channel right now, for example. The refugees are very deliberately trying to pick countries in which they feel they are more likely to be accepted for asylum rather than stopping in the closest one. Of course one could be cynical and point out that they're also traveling to the countries which provide the most generous social security to people in need, but that'd be silly now, wouldn't it? It would be stupid of them not to do the exact same thing you would do in their situation. Acting like they are not going to look for the best place to live and survive is pretty unreasonable. The simple fact is that people all want it to be another countries problem, not theirs. Everyone is passing the buck. And I pointed out that expecting someone fleeing a warzone to follow the rules of a 60 year old treaty is sort of stupid. The rule is fine. Claiming that no one should help people fleeing from a warzone because they didn’t follow the rule is silly. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 26 2015 23:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is understandable what they want and why they want it; they simply do not have a right to it. Asylum-seeking has a specific definition which joins certain irregular rights enjoyed by migrants with certain conditions. Those conditions do not include the stipulation that the lives of men must be happy, prosperous, successful or free of human agonies. One can be an ideological one-worlder, and muse about the unity of humanity, bemoan the unjustifiable artifices which are nations and states, assert the collective responsibility of everyone for everyone else, and the supremacy of the law of Antigone over the laws of men. If that is your a priori conception of ethics, then the subject at hand is merely a secondary assertion of something that looms deeper in your conscience, and should not distract you from the conscious statement of it. Please provide a solution to the problem then? Do you want to ship them back to the place they fled? And if so, are you willing to bring them there to do it? | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On August 26 2015 22:53 Plansix wrote: Not true! These people are not naive, they are desperate not dumb.The idea that the refugees of the violence in the Middle East are going to spend some time looking up what is the most viable country where they can legally seek asylum is straight up comical and demonstrates a complete lack of understand of why they are fleeing their homelands. Fleeing from a war zone or a 'failed state' by train, boat and on foot takes month. A lot of time to talk to other refugees on their experience. Have you seen the images from Calais? Ever wondered why so many Eritreans risk their lives making it to the UK when they could 'just apply in France'? It is because asylum applications from Eritreans are approved only for 15 percent in France, while in the UK it is 92 percent (2014). And like I sad earlier, these acceptance rates are different for every country in the EU and every original country of the refugee and they fluctuate. Just some small examples for you (all from 2014): General asylum approval rates in Bulgaria - 94% Sweden - 77% Italy - 59% Germany - 42% France - 22% Greece - 15% Hungary - 9% No surprise then that few asylum seekers want to remain in Hungary or Greece and risk being finger-printed before they reach their preferred destination. In Bulgaria only every 20th application gets rejected, while in Hungary 9 out of 10 get denied. What a night-and-day difference. Syrian asylum approval rates by EU countries Sweden - 100% Germany - 100% Bulgaria - 100% France - 97% Hungary - 65% Italy - 64% Greece - 60% With the exception of Hungary, Greece and Italy, most countries approve nearly all applications from Syrians. The same isn't true for Afghans, who registered the second largest number of asylum applications in Europe in 2014 behind Syrians. Afghan asylum approval rates by EU countries Italy - 95% France - 82% Sweden - 75% Germany - 67% Greece - 26% Hungary - 24% Bulgaria - 19% While in Italy and France Afghans have a very high chance of being allowed to stay, in Romania and Bulgaria around four out of five are refused. | ||
| ||
|
|
KCM Race Survival
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
