|
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. |
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in?
|
On September 16 2015 15:50 kwizach wrote:
I wasn't condoning the current system, merely explain why it's predominantly men who reach Europe and claim asylum before their families join them. Some were arguing that the fact that there were more men meant that they were economic migrants, which is completely false.
It's actually completely true considering your last post completely supports the claim that they are economic migrants and not refugees. If they were really refugees, surely they would risk the not so dangerous trip to flee from the risk of death of staying in Syria. There is even rumour that the migrants are intentionally sinking their boat once they see a Greek coast guard so the coast guard would be obliged to help them and allow them on shore.
|
You don't get it.
They flee with their families to the first "saveish" country. Then they leave their Families back in Turkye (or wherever) in an overcrowded camp and move on alone to europe to get asylum at a place where they actually could have a future.
Are they strictly speaking still fleeing immediate danger? No. Does this make them economical refugees? No.
And btw:
Assuming there are atm 5 Million refugees that are travelling towards europe. Thats 1% of europes Population. HOW should it not be possible to distribute them evenly among countries/cities/villiages/communes? If we can't deal with 1 refugee per 100 citizens, we seem to have way bigger issues than the actual refugees...
|
On September 16 2015 16:26 Velr wrote:
You don't get it.
They flee with their families to the first "saveish" country. Then they leave their Families back in Turkye (or wherever) in an overcrowded camp and move on alone to europe to get asylum at a place where they actually could have a future.
Are they strictly speaking still fleeing immediate danger? No. Does this make them economical refugees? No.
And btw:
Assuming there are atm 5 Million refugees that are travelling towards europe. Thats 1% of europes Population. HOW should it not be possible to distribute them evenly among countries/cities/villiages/communes? If we can't deal with 1 refugee per 100 citizens, we seem to have way bigger issues than the actual refugees...
I`m not sure you can distribute them. The have the tendency to gather together. At least thats what happening in Sofia.
|
We ourselves got a tendency to gather them together (in places with very cheap rent and weak political opposition), they can't exactly chose where they will stay (refugees that is, immigrants are an entirely diffrent topic).
|
On September 16 2015 16:21 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 15:50 kwizach wrote:
I wasn't condoning the current system, merely explain why it's predominantly men who reach Europe and claim asylum before their families join them. Some were arguing that the fact that there were more men meant that they were economic migrants, which is completely false. It's actually completely true considering your last post completely supports the claim that they are economic migrants and not refugees. If they were really refugees, surely they would risk the not so dangerous trip to flee from the risk of death of staying in Syria. There is even rumour that the migrants are intentionally sinking their boat once they see a Greek coast guard so the coast guard would be obliged to help them and allow them on shore.
No, the idea that they are economic migrants is factually false, because that is not what economic migrants are. They are refugees, and you don't know anything about them. The trip is dangerous, and many families are already outside of Syria, in overcrowded and undersupplied camps in neighboring countries.
|
From January till September 10th. 245 Syrians applied for refugee status in Poland, 160 from whom were brought here by some kind of Estera Foundation. From those 160, 86 immediatly after recieving the refugee status left Poland and went to other countries in Western Europe.
Refugees my ass.
|
What is the deal with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the super rich arab countries? Why do they refuse to hold the refugees? Pathetic.
|
On September 16 2015 19:25 NukeD wrote:
What is the deal with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the super rich arab countries? Why do they refuse to hold the refugees? Pathetic.
I dont think that any "refugees" are going in the direction of SA.
|
Saudi Arabia has legalized slavery and you want the refugees to go there ? lol
|
There are other countries than Sauida Arabia over there. So if the refugees went there they would be declined asylum right?
|
On September 16 2015 19:47 NukeD wrote:
There are other countries than Sauida Arabia over there. So if the refugees went there they would be declined asylum right?
Well the closest ones that are not already a warzone already have a ton of refugees. The rest require travel through warzones, dangerous terrain and areas controlled by terrorists.
|
On September 16 2015 19:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 19:47 NukeD wrote:
There are other countries than Sauida Arabia over there. So if the refugees went there they would be declined asylum right? Well the closest ones that are not already a warzone already have a ton of refugees. The rest require travel through warzones, dangerous terrain and areas controlled by terrorists.
Israel has refused to take in any refugees - or rather "illegal immigrants" - Netanyahu 2013.
The road to the GCC-countries is really no more dangerous than crossing the Mediterranean in a leaky boat - in fact, walking through Jordan to Saudi Arabia and through there to the other GCC countries is probably a safer. The reason for chosing EU over GCC-countries is because EU actually takes some responsibility whereas the GCC-countries are not.
EDIT: Point being: If the excuses being used by the GCC and Israel were actually true, none of us should accept any Syrian refugees as they would be terrorists/ISIS-members. If the excuses are not true Israel and GCC should be held accountable and receive much greater international pressure than they currently are.
|
Zurich15362 Posts
On September 16 2015 20:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 19:56 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 19:47 NukeD wrote:
There are other countries than Sauida Arabia over there. So if the refugees went there they would be declined asylum right? Well the closest ones that are not already a warzone already have a ton of refugees. The rest require travel through warzones, dangerous terrain and areas controlled by terrorists. The road to the GCC-countries is really no more dangerous than crossing the Mediterranean in a leaky boat - in fact, walking through Jordan to Saudi Arabia and through there to the other GCC countries is probably a safer. The reason for chosing EU over GCC-countries is because EU actually takes some responsibility whereas the GCC-countries are not. EDIT: Point being: If the excuses being used by the GCC and Israel were actually true, none of us should accept any Syrian refugees as they would be terrorists/ISIS-members. If the excuses are not true Israel and GCC should be held accountable and receive much greater international pressure than they currently are.
Most refugees come from the Northwest of Syria though, simply because that's where most of the population is. Crossing from there through the war zone is certainly more dangerous than the Euro route.
For all the hate SA is getting, they did accept 250k Syrians permanently. Granted, those were Syrians who held SA visa before, but at least they made their permits permanent instead of sending them back to hell.
But yeah, if you are fleeing ISIS, Saudi is probably not your top destination. Or anyone's for that matter.
|
On September 16 2015 16:11 nitram wrote:
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in?
I explained this, in quite alot of detail, just one page back. Let me help you understand this:
Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there. But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture: 1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there. 2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them. 3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right. Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: Show nested quote +Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/refugees.htmNow it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe. Now, we get to the crux of the matter: 4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status.
|
On September 16 2015 21:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 16:11 nitram wrote:
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in? I explained this, in quite alot of detail, just one page back. Let me help you understand this: Show nested quote +Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there. But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture: 1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there. 2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them. 3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right. Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
Now it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe. Now, we get to the crux of the matter: 4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status.
You realize Europe is not a country, right? Why the "refugees" dont want to stay in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech, Poland etc, but want to go to one particular place - Germany?
|
'cause here they'll be getting ~150E a month.
|
On September 16 2015 22:30 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 21:24 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2015 16:11 nitram wrote:
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in? I explained this, in quite alot of detail, just one page back. Let me help you understand this: Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there. But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture: 1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there. 2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them. 3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right. Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
Now it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe. Now, we get to the crux of the matter: 4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status. You realize Europe is not a country, right? Why the "refugees" dont want to stay in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech, Poland etc, but want to go to one particular place - Germany?
It has to do with acceptance rates of refugees. Germany accepts more of them by a huge amount, so like water, they take the path of least resistance. Until they are accepted as a refugee, they can't work, kids can't go to school. Everything is on hold until that happens.
Germany is being “punished” with a huge influx of refugees because other countries are ignoring the issue or hoping someone else will deal with it. If Syrians felt confident that they would be accepted as a refugee in Greece and assigned a country to live in, the problem would resolve itself.
|
On September 16 2015 22:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:30 mdb wrote:On September 16 2015 21:24 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2015 16:11 nitram wrote:
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in? I explained this, in quite alot of detail, just one page back. Let me help you understand this: Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there. But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture: 1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there. 2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them. 3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right. Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
Now it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe. Now, we get to the crux of the matter: 4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status. You realize Europe is not a country, right? Why the "refugees" dont want to stay in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech, Poland etc, but want to go to one particular place - Germany? It has to do with acceptance rates of refugees. Germany accepts more of them by a huge amount, so like water, they take the path of least resistance. Until they are accepted as a refugee, they can't work, kids can't go to school. Everything is on hold until that happens. Germany is being “punished” with a huge influx of refugees because other countries are ignoring the issue or hoping someone else will deal with it. If Syrians felt confident that they would be accepted as a refugee in Greece and assigned a country to live in, the problem would resolve itself.
Dude, are you for real?
|
On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:36 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:30 mdb wrote:On September 16 2015 21:24 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2015 16:11 nitram wrote:
This just brings up more questions. How long are the families going To stay put if Germany is still processing refugees from 2014. Why are these people even travelling so far instead of finding the first safe country they can so they can bring their families that much quicker. If it's safer to leave their families in Syria then the voyage to Germany, maybe they don't really have that big of a reason to leave? Even if everyone of these men is granted asylum, how exactly are all the families going To get in? I explained this, in quite alot of detail, just one page back. Let me help you understand this: Obviously, there is a pretty simple explanation, which is that shitty leaky boats crossing over the mediterranean is a high-risk business, and a responsible husband will risk that journey in order to later reunite with his family. This ties into a further issue which is that after stabilizing the situation within Europe, the only way we are ever going to stop people wanting to cross in shitty leaky boats that half the time don't make it across the sea, is by stabilizing the situation in other countries; first and foremost in Turkey and Lebanon, which are also horribly underequipped and underfinanced for dealing with the 3million refugees there. But I presume this would just add fuel on your fire that these people risking death in a leaky shitboat to cross the mediterranean are economic immigrants and not refugees. So let me nip that argument in the bud, by sketching for you the following picture: 1. Syria is a fucked up shitty hellhole and people are fleeing persecution by any one of the equally horrid factions fighting out a war of attrition there. 2. Turkey and Lebanon are safe. However, they are unequipped and the situation there is unstable, uncertain and without any prospect of improving. The vast majority of refugees CANNOT be granted asylum here, because currently there is no infrastructure to deal with them. 3. Europe has more capacity for dealing with asylum seekers. Maybe not 3million of them, and definitely not all at once, but definitely the couple of hundred thousand seeking asylum right now. Therefore, if you can get to Europe and seek asylum there, you will obtain a stable solution. While not unquestionable, most organizations agree that refugees have this right. Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: Refugee protection and assistance organizations generally promote three "durable solutions" to the fate of refugees: - Voluntary repatriation : refugees are able to return to their home country because their lives and liberty are no longer threatened;
- Local integration: host governments allow refugees to integrate into the country of first asylum; and
- Resettlement in a third country : repatriation is unsafe and the first-asylum country refuses local integration.
Now it is obvious that point 1 does not apply right now, and Lebanon and Turkey are currently unfit to provide point 2, and are probably permanently unfit to provide point 2 to 3million people (especially Lebanon). That means the only option is (3), and hence refugees flee into Europe. Now, we get to the crux of the matter: 4. To get to Europe you have to risk a dangerous trip. And now we have completed the argument for why mostly young males make the trip to Europe, and why these young males are nevertheless fully deserving of refugee status. You realize Europe is not a country, right? Why the "refugees" dont want to stay in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech, Poland etc, but want to go to one particular place - Germany? It has to do with acceptance rates of refugees. Germany accepts more of them by a huge amount, so like water, they take the path of least resistance. Until they are accepted as a refugee, they can't work, kids can't go to school. Everything is on hold until that happens. Germany is being “punished” with a huge influx of refugees because other countries are ignoring the issue or hoping someone else will deal with it. If Syrians felt confident that they would be accepted as a refugee in Greece and assigned a country to live in, the problem would resolve itself. Dude, are you for real?
Yes.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.png
The fact is that they are traveling to the areas where they have the just chance of being accepted. I'm sure that Germany has robust social services is a factor in some way, but these people are literally homeless. So any country that accepted them would be an upgrade from their current condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
