|
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. |
Sorry, but you're dumb as fuck, look at the percentages in the first article you linked.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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.
According to your chart more than 50% of the applications for refugee status in Germany are rejected. While in Bulgaria the percentage for rejection is 5%.
|
don't worry he'll turn it around and pick at the numbers not %
|
On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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.
While i agree with you on most of your arguments, the economic differences between Greece and Germany is a major factor on their decision. I don't have exact numbers but since 2010, more than 400k young Greeks have fled the country to try and work in a better economy. I wouldn't stay here if i had zero ties with the land myself.
|
On September 16 2015 23:00 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. According to your chart more than 50% of the applications for refugee status in Germany are rejected. While in Bulgaria the percentage for rejection is 5%.
If you look at the second stats, which focus solely on refugees and not migrants, Germany grants refugee status to a large number of applicants. Most so other nations. Greece grants few comparison to the total number of applicants for asylum.
On September 16 2015 23:04 gsgfdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. While i agree with you on most of your arguments, the economic differences between Greece and Germany is a major factor on their decision. I don't have exact numbers but since 2010, more than 400k young Greeks have fled the country to try and work in a better economy. I wouldn't stay here if i had zero ties with the land myself.
Of course. They are not going to stay in a country that is also in crisis. That is bad for everyone involved. Settling countries and refugees up to fail is not a solution. Their decision is basely on the chance of them finding work and stability.
|
On September 16 2015 23:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 23:00 mdb wrote:On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. According to your chart more than 50% of the applications for refugee status in Germany are rejected. While in Bulgaria the percentage for rejection is 5%. If you look at the second stats, which focus solely on refugees and not migrants, Germany grants refugee status to a large number of applicants. Most so other nations. Greece grants few comparison to the total number of applicants for asylum. Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 23:04 gsgfdf wrote:On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. While i agree with you on most of your arguments, the economic differences between Greece and Germany is a major factor on their decision. I don't have exact numbers but since 2010, more than 400k young Greeks have fled the country to try and work in a better economy. I wouldn't stay here if i had zero ties with the land myself. Of course. They are not going to stay in a country that is also in crisis. That is bad for everyone involved.
Even in the second graph germany is not at the top of the pile when it comes to percentages.
|
Some people who were already accepted in Eastern Europe choose to leave their gifts (I mean those which they can't take with themselves) and migrate to the West so the acceptance argument is at least partially wrong. I don't blame them for leaving, obviously a fresh start in Austria is better than a fresh start in Bulgaria or Latvia. And by the way, do African refugees migrate from Spain to France too?
EU definitely needs a new plan but I don't see how are they going to force refugees to stay in Eastern Europe. They will keep trying to migrate illegaly so we'll have to burn millions of euros just on deporting them back to their host country. I don't think anyone wants to disable Schengen permanently but even if we tried that I believe it wouldn't work.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On September 16 2015 23:09 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2015 23:07 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 23:00 mdb wrote:On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. According to your chart more than 50% of the applications for refugee status in Germany are rejected. While in Bulgaria the percentage for rejection is 5%. If you look at the second stats, which focus solely on refugees and not migrants, Germany grants refugee status to a large number of applicants. Most so other nations. Greece grants few comparison to the total number of applicants for asylum. On September 16 2015 23:04 gsgfdf wrote:On September 16 2015 22:52 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2015 22:47 mdb wrote: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-charthttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2014_(number,_rounded_figures)_YB15_IV.pngThe 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. While i agree with you on most of your arguments, the economic differences between Greece and Germany is a major factor on their decision. I don't have exact numbers but since 2010, more than 400k young Greeks have fled the country to try and work in a better economy. I wouldn't stay here if i had zero ties with the land myself. Of course. They are not going to stay in a country that is also in crisis. That is bad for everyone involved. Even in the second graph germany is not at the top of the pile when it comes to percentages.
The reason is well known. This is due to about half of applications in Germany coming from the Balkans, mostly Kosovo and Albania. They get rejected. Approval rate for applications from Syria on the other hand is (very close to) 100% in Germany.
Applications from Syria in 2014: 26,703
Rejections: 19
http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/germany/asylum-procedure/treatment-specific-nationalities
|
Migrants from Balkans don't get asylum in Germany. Rejection rate is 99.8%. But it takes 6-12 months for the bureaucracy to get trough each case after application. And even after the rejection, most of the people could technically stay in Germany, since "Abschiebung" (get rejected people back to their country) is slow and very unpopular and can be stopped by various formalities.
But it's bullshit. Those people most likely don't have a future in germany, but instead of making everything clear and fast (like in France), they spent 2-3 years or even longer waiting for the inevitable and then they get arrested and brought back forcefully.
They are only allowed to do low-level jobs like garbage collecting and green-keeping/gardening despite possible qualifications, if allowed at all.
I don't think this helps anyone to be honest. The Eastern-Europe countries won't ever get better if their population rather takes a 0.02% chance to stay in germany, even without a job getting more money than average wage in their home countries.
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia is perfectly in their rights to reject whoever they want. They are doing it right in my opinion, take only the best, most desirable refugees and keep the undesirables out.
|
On September 17 2015 01:01 Wolfstan wrote:
Saudi Arabia is perfectly in their rights to reject whoever they want. They are doing it right in my opinion, take only the best, most desirable refugees and keep the undesirables out.
not sure if irony or not...
|
Judging from the post history, I doubt it is irony.
|
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too.
|
On September 17 2015 01:56 Sermokala wrote:
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too.
The thing is that people, when they take that "economical" argument, put aside the fact that the society is divided by different interests and groups. Immigration profit certain people, that's it. In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration).
The left in europe right now is constantly using that economical argument to support their desire to welcome refugees (E. Balibar even wrote a piece saying it will force europe into changing their economical policies ! who seriously believe that ?) shows very well how the current left is liberal to its core.
By the way, I don't believe integration in the US is really that great. The high crime rate can be seen as the result of the poverty, lack of welfare and education, that touch the minorities.
|
On September 17 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 01:56 Sermokala wrote:
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too. The thing is that people, when they take that "economical" argument, put aside the fact that the society is divided by different interests and groups. Immigration profit certain people, that's it. In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration). The left in europe right now is constantly using that economical argument to support their desire to welcome refugees (E. Balibar even wrote a piece saying it will force europe into changing their economical policies ! who seriously believe that ?) shows very well how the current left is liberal to its core.
well from a german point of view, as the country that recently even "surpassed" Japan when it comes to having the lowest birthrate, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find negative things about it.
We just flat out won't have the people to pay for pensions for people who can't work anymore come 20 or 30 more years right now.
|
On September 17 2015 02:23 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:On September 17 2015 01:56 Sermokala wrote:
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too. The thing is that people, when they take that "economical" argument, put aside the fact that the society is divided by different interests and groups. Immigration profit certain people, that's it. In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration). The left in europe right now is constantly using that economical argument to support their desire to welcome refugees (E. Balibar even wrote a piece saying it will force europe into changing their economical policies ! who seriously believe that ?) shows very well how the current left is liberal to its core. well from a german point of view, as the country that recently even "surpassed" Japan when it comes to having the lowest birthrate, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find negative things about it. We just flat out won't have the people to pay for pensions come 20 or 30 more years right now.
Yeah Germany has its own problems, but look at the rest of europe. There are countries where the population is actually migrating from (portugal, spain).
|
On September 17 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 01:56 Sermokala wrote:
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too. The thing is that people, when they take that "economical" argument, put aside the fact that the society is divided by different interests and groups. Immigration profit certain people, that's it. In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration). The left in europe right now is constantly using that economical argument to support their desire to welcome refugees (E. Balibar even wrote a piece saying it will force europe into changing their economical policies ! who seriously believe that ?) shows very well how the current left is liberal to its core. By the way, I don't believe integration in the US is really that great. The high crime rate can be seen as the result of the poverty, lack of welfare and education, that touch the minorities.
More black than latino, though. The latinos as a whole are doing a helluvalot better than the blacks. And the poverty and crime among black minorities can definitely not be blamed on a failed immigration policy...
|
On September 17 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:
In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration).
Many countries with absolutely atrocious economic situations in Europe have net emigration for years, it hasn't helped the labour market a bit. Is there any data at all that supports the claim that immigration drives wages down significantly? You're a big proponent of demand oriented policies and immigrants buy stuff and create jobs, too.
|
On September 17 2015 02:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:On September 17 2015 01:56 Sermokala wrote:
Economically all of them are desirable. Look at America it only takes a generation or so for indoctrination to set in with the kids and then suddenly they're good working citizens. Poor people are going to work hard to feed their kids and take shitty jobs to support them. You can't look at them like they're people you have to look at them like cogs in your economic machine.
The point is that the men are trying to earn money to get somewhere were they can bring the rest of their family over. USAs illegals are treated like shit and we still get them paying way more in taxes then they take out in services. That's having your cake and eating it too. The thing is that people, when they take that "economical" argument, put aside the fact that the society is divided by different interests and groups. Immigration profit certain people, that's it. In a place where there are already 25 million people unemployed (europe) saying that immigration will instantly have a positive economical impact for everybody is just dumb and hypocritical. They will most likely put pressure on lower wage - which is exactly what has been happening in europe in the schenghen area through the introduction of some of eastern countries (and what has happened historically in the US through immigration). The left in europe right now is constantly using that economical argument to support their desire to welcome refugees (E. Balibar even wrote a piece saying it will force europe into changing their economical policies ! who seriously believe that ?) shows very well how the current left is liberal to its core. By the way, I don't believe integration in the US is really that great. The high crime rate can be seen as the result of the poverty, lack of welfare and education, that touch the minorities. More black than latino, though. The latinos as a whole are doing a helluvalot better than the blacks. And the poverty and crime among black minorities can definitely not be blamed on a failed immigration policy...
We have unlimited failed policies to blame for that. Privatizing prisons, the war on drugs, mandatory minimums, three strikes and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
