|
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. |
On August 26 2015 23:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2015 23:20 dismiss wrote:On August 26 2015 23:08 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2015 23:00 MoltkeWarding wrote: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. 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? 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.
Talking about the rules, a friend of mine (in the Netherlands) was a political refugee, or rather, her parents were. It took them about 15 years until a political pardon officially allowed them to stay. During that time they had become stateless, because the USSR had fallen apart and Russia would not give them statehood despite being born there, unless they physically returned to Russia to live there. Could they (and maybe even *should* they) have returned to Russia? Technically, the political threat was gone: firstly her father, the political activist, had died, and secondly, the regime against whom he had agitated was gone. Nevertheless, by the time they figured it was safe to return to Russia, they had lived abroad for 7 years: first in Germany and then in the Netherlands. All that time with the status of "political refugees" with their asylum process ongoing. After about 9 years of backlog it was denied (at first) because there was no longer a risk in their home country.
There are abuses of the system, of course. However, the system itself is also plenty abusive. People queueing up in Calais is ridiculous, and the French immigration service should just go in there, and tell them they can either sign up in France for asylum (or economic refugee) or get deported. They are clearly not following the rules, and making it rather easy for the French to force them to follow the rules. However, it is against the French best interest (passing the buck: they want to get to England, lets not stop them!) to process that ragtag group of people. This is a great opportunity for Europe to show solidarity, and create a coherent unified immigration policy. It makes far more sense to do this for immigration than the monetary union. Yet petty nationalistic politics will undoubtedly trump this matter.
Case in point: Slovakia refusing to accept Islamic Syrians...
|
On August 26 2015 23:38 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2015 22:53 Plansix wrote:
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. Not true! These people are not naive, they are desperate not dumb. 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 countriesSweden - 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 countriesItaly - 95% France - 82% Sweden - 75% Germany - 67% Greece - 26% Hungary - 24% Bulgaria - 19% While in Italy and France Syrians have a very high chance of being allowed to stay, in Romania and Bulgaria around four out of five are refused.
Wow. This statistic blows my mind, and illustrates how absolutely necessary a unified EU immigration policy is.
|
While I am not denying the numbers I do have to raise the point that absolute numbers matter aswell.
Greece only approves 60% but I would assume they get a LOT more Syrian refugees then Sweden.
If Sweden gets 10 and approves all and Greece gets 10.000 and approves 1.000 which is the better country?
|
On August 26 2015 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:
While I am not denying the numbers I do have to raise the point that absolute numbers matter aswell.
Greece only approves 60% but I would assume they get a LOT more Syrian refugees then Sweden.
If Sweden gets 10 and approves all and Greece gets 10.000 and approves 1.000 which is the better country?
In this case the assumptions are untrue.
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/asylum.php
|
On August 26 2015 23:55 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2015 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:
While I am not denying the numbers I do have to raise the point that absolute numbers matter aswell.
Greece only approves 60% but I would assume they get a LOT more Syrian refugees then Sweden.
If Sweden gets 10 and approves all and Greece gets 10.000 and approves 1.000 which is the better country?
In this case the assumptions are untrue. http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/asylum.php
Hm unexpected but ok 
|
On August 26 2015 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:
While I am not denying the numbers I do have to raise the point that absolute numbers matter aswell.
Greece only approves 60% but I would assume they get a LOT more Syrian refugees then Sweden.
If Sweden gets 10 and approves all and Greece gets 10.000 and approves 1.000 which is the better country?
No, you assume wrong.
Syrian asylum requests(2014)
Germany - 41.100
Sweden - 30.750
Hungary - 6.855
France - 2.845
Greece - 785
And while we are at it:
Non-EU asylum requests / % positive decision / positive decisions
(all still 2014, I believe these number have increased a lot this year)
Germany - 97.275 - 42% - 40.560
Sweden - 39.905 - 77% - 30.650
Italy - 35.180 - 59% - 20.580
Switzerland - 21.800 - 71% - 15.410 (*not EU)
France - 68.500 - 22% - 14.815
Netherlands - 18.790 - 70% - 12.550
UK - 25.870 - 39% - 10.050
Belgium - 20.335 - 40% - 8.045
Bulgaria - 7435 - 94% - 7000
Greece - 13.305 - 15% - 1.970
Hungary - 5.445 - 9% - 510
|
Sorry, I was too dumb to hit 'edit' and quoted myself instead. 
|
On August 26 2015 23:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Immigration is an absolute excellent thing for the welfare state, however, you are conflating immigrants with refugees. They enter a new society with very different mindsets and very different options - and with very different aptitudes for adopting to the new society. Furthermore, an immigrant is someone a society is certain they can use/who can provide for him- or herself and the amount of immigrants is regulated. Refugees are much less so.
The issue is that these refugees turned immigrants from both Syria and Eritrera have been historically difficult to integrate into the Danish society due to the huge difference in culture and norms. Looking at how they do (and we are really good at tracking that in Denmark due to our numerous databases and social security number which allows for cross-linkage of multiple databases - you can find the numbers on Statistics Denmark), their education is lower, their unemployment is higher, their drug abuse is higher, and they commit crime much more often - and this remains true even for the 3.rd generation (though a positive trend can be seen in that 3.rd generation is better than 2.nd generation which is better than 1.st).
|
On August 26 2015 18:25 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
With the current system you are basically forcing people to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea, giving their wealth to human traffickers and cheating their way through several countries to have the best chance to get asylum in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands or the UK.
|
On August 27 2015 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2015 23:25 Acrofales wrote: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. Immigration is an absolute excellent thing for the welfare state, however, you are conflating immigrants with refugees. They enter a new society with very different mindsets and very different options - and with very different aptitudes for adopting to the new society. Furthermore, an immigrant is someone a society is certain they can use/who can provide for him- or herself and the amount of immigrants is regulated. Refugees are much less so. The issue is that these refugees turned immigrants from both Syria and Eritrera have been historically difficult to integrate into the Danish society due to the huge difference in culture and norms. Looking at how they do (and we are really good at tracking that in Denmark due to our numerous databases and social security number which allows for cross-linkage of multiple databases - you can find the numbers on Statistics Denmark), their education is lower, their unemployment is higher, their drug abuse is higher, and they commit crime much more often - and this remains true even for the 3.rd generation (though a positive trend can be seen in that 3.rd generation is better than 2.nd generation which is better than 1.st).
Immigration into a welfare state is good for it in the same way that new clients is good for a ponzi scheme; unless you are only importing millionaires, or relegating them to permanent second class citizens.
|
On August 27 2015 02:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2015 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On August 26 2015 23:25 Acrofales wrote: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. Immigration is an absolute excellent thing for the welfare state, however, you are conflating immigrants with refugees. They enter a new society with very different mindsets and very different options - and with very different aptitudes for adopting to the new society. Furthermore, an immigrant is someone a society is certain they can use/who can provide for him- or herself and the amount of immigrants is regulated. Refugees are much less so. The issue is that these refugees turned immigrants from both Syria and Eritrera have been historically difficult to integrate into the Danish society due to the huge difference in culture and norms. Looking at how they do (and we are really good at tracking that in Denmark due to our numerous databases and social security number which allows for cross-linkage of multiple databases - you can find the numbers on Statistics Denmark), their education is lower, their unemployment is higher, their drug abuse is higher, and they commit crime much more often - and this remains true even for the 3.rd generation (though a positive trend can be seen in that 3.rd generation is better than 2.nd generation which is better than 1.st). Immigration into a welfare state is good for it in the same way that new clients is good for a ponzi scheme; unless you are only importing millionaires, or relegating them to permanent second class citizens.
No. If you have some substantial points you would like to argue please present them, I'll gladly entertain such a discussion, however silly one-liners which are factually wrong is not going to get us anywhere near a better understanding/agreement.
|
On August 27 2015 02:58 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2015 02:15 cLutZ wrote:On August 27 2015 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On August 26 2015 23:25 Acrofales wrote: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. Immigration is an absolute excellent thing for the welfare state, however, you are conflating immigrants with refugees. They enter a new society with very different mindsets and very different options - and with very different aptitudes for adopting to the new society. Furthermore, an immigrant is someone a society is certain they can use/who can provide for him- or herself and the amount of immigrants is regulated. Refugees are much less so. The issue is that these refugees turned immigrants from both Syria and Eritrera have been historically difficult to integrate into the Danish society due to the huge difference in culture and norms. Looking at how they do (and we are really good at tracking that in Denmark due to our numerous databases and social security number which allows for cross-linkage of multiple databases - you can find the numbers on Statistics Denmark), their education is lower, their unemployment is higher, their drug abuse is higher, and they commit crime much more often - and this remains true even for the 3.rd generation (though a positive trend can be seen in that 3.rd generation is better than 2.nd generation which is better than 1.st). Immigration into a welfare state is good for it in the same way that new clients is good for a ponzi scheme; unless you are only importing millionaires, or relegating them to permanent second class citizens. No. If you have some substantial points you would like to argue please present them, I'll gladly entertain such a discussion, however silly one-liners which are factually wrong is not going to get us anywhere near a better understanding/agreement.
Its not really much more than a one-liner. Its simple math that the reason the welfare states are starting to struggle is the ratio between payers and payees (retirees mostly) has gone down. Increasing immigration among the young will add to your payee pool, which will temporarily solve your cash flow crisis, but when they age out of the workforce they will still likely not have increased your country's birthrate to the 3.0,4.0, 5.0 children per woman needed to properly maintain a welfare state so you have kicked the can down the road.
|
On August 27 2015 03:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2015 02:58 Ghostcom wrote:On August 27 2015 02:15 cLutZ wrote:On August 27 2015 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On August 26 2015 23:25 Acrofales wrote: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. Immigration is an absolute excellent thing for the welfare state, however, you are conflating immigrants with refugees. They enter a new society with very different mindsets and very different options - and with very different aptitudes for adopting to the new society. Furthermore, an immigrant is someone a society is certain they can use/who can provide for him- or herself and the amount of immigrants is regulated. Refugees are much less so. The issue is that these refugees turned immigrants from both Syria and Eritrera have been historically difficult to integrate into the Danish society due to the huge difference in culture and norms. Looking at how they do (and we are really good at tracking that in Denmark due to our numerous databases and social security number which allows for cross-linkage of multiple databases - you can find the numbers on Statistics Denmark), their education is lower, their unemployment is higher, their drug abuse is higher, and they commit crime much more often - and this remains true even for the 3.rd generation (though a positive trend can be seen in that 3.rd generation is better than 2.nd generation which is better than 1.st). Immigration into a welfare state is good for it in the same way that new clients is good for a ponzi scheme; unless you are only importing millionaires, or relegating them to permanent second class citizens. No. If you have some substantial points you would like to argue please present them, I'll gladly entertain such a discussion, however silly one-liners which are factually wrong is not going to get us anywhere near a better understanding/agreement. Its not really much more than a one-liner. Its simple math that the reason the welfare states are starting to struggle is the ratio between payers and payees (retirees mostly) has gone down. Increasing immigration among the young will add to your payee pool, which will temporarily solve your cash flow crisis, but when they age out of the workforce they will still likely not have increased your country's birthrate to the 3.0,4.0, 5.0 children per woman needed to properly maintain a welfare state so you have kicked the can down the road.
Immigrants generally DO have a higher birth rate than autochtonous northern Europeans. This is exactly one of the things that the right wing parties keep harping on. However, I do agree with you that the welfare state as it was conceived of after WW2 is unsustainable without a higher influx of new working-age people than average birth rates maintain. Because the population has mostly stopped growing (except for Africa), the welfare state DOES need reforming. However, there is a big difference between reforming it over the next 20-30 years, as most European countries have already started doing, and watching it collapse right now as the baby boomers retire en masse.
|
given the fact that private wealth is still growing several times as fast as debt in most Western countries a little wealth redistribution probably wouldn't hurt to alleviate the problem.
|
On August 27 2015 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:
given the fact that private wealth is still growing several times as fast as debt in most Western countries a little wealth redistribution probably wouldn't hurt to alleviate the problem.
And how do you intend to do that? Levy even more income tax, or somehow tax money that is on foreign bank accounts (i.e. out of reach of a sovereign nation state)? There's a limit to how much you can tax people before they will start to actively look for ways to evade paying taxes, or start to try their luck elsewhere. In case of Belgium (and I assume Denmark too) that limit is pretty much reached. Tax evasion is a symptom of an underlying problem, usually that people no longer trust their governments to spend those taxes in ways their citizens find appropriate.
|
|
|
On August 27 2015 04:30 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2015 03:44 Nyxisto wrote:
given the fact that private wealth is still growing several times as fast as debt in most Western countries a little wealth redistribution probably wouldn't hurt to alleviate the problem. And how do you intend to do that? Levy even more income tax, or somehow tax money that is on foreign bank accounts (i.e. out of reach of a sovereign nation state)? There's a limit to how much you can tax people before they will start to actively look for ways to evade paying taxes, or start to try their luck elsewhere. In case of Belgium (and I assume Denmark too) that limit is pretty much reached. Tax evasion is a symptom of an underlying problem, usually that people no longer trust their governments to spend those taxes in ways their citizens find appropriate.
Lol... as if they arent doing this allready and would stop doing it if taxes would be at 10%.
|
I notice neither of you are providing any suggestion as to how this wealth redistribution should occur - or, admittedly, neither if you think it is a good idea.
|
On August 27 2015 21:16 Ghostcom wrote:
I notice neither of you are providing any suggestion as to how this wealth redistribution should occur - or, admittedly, neither if you think it is a good idea.
Statist have little regard for reality. They blindly support their bad ideas.
|
On August 27 2015 21:16 Ghostcom wrote:
I notice neither of you are providing any suggestion as to how this wealth redistribution should occur - or, admittedly, neither if you think it is a good idea.
shit ton of land & property taxes, which are very hard to avoid and extremely underused (because they'd work)
The IMF has a paper on the topic:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13129.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
