No a German minister said they'd expect to see 800k arrive. Big difference. They never said they'd take any particular number.
No a German minister said they'd expect to see 800k arrive. Big difference. They never said they'd take any particular number.
Then what are you complaining about, exactly? You may not like what Merkel/Germany has promised to refugees.....but that could only have happened in an un-coordinated European Union vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Germany held the brunt of the EU and IMF role in the global financial crisis fallout at bay. They practically carried a gasping Europe across the finish line.
No, I don't just agree with 'others' I like to have my own opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It would also be easier to say 'others' if you mean 'others' instead of using a overly vague passive sentence.Quote:
I could have easier used the word you if I meant you.
:bulb:Quote:
If people will stop bringing up Germany like they're some shining beacon of doing the right thing then I'll stop having a go.
I explicitly wrote that I disagree with the German policies and that "Merkel fucked it up". How can I be more clear?
I used the 800K number not to show how good and holy Germany is, but to show the scale of the problem.
Why should I argue for a policy that I am against?Quote:
The only thing worse than the fact that Germany is being utterly moronic and rather evil here is that they're being held up as being good. Encouraging people to pay people smugglers while doing fuck all to help is evil and I will not stand idly by while people suggest they are doing anything right here. Nobody has yet named a single good thing they're actively doing other than accepting those who've paid people smugglers and made their own way in a Darwinian survival of the fittest - big deal.
That's absolutely untrue. Had the EU as a whole had the same policy of Germany (no direct support, just wait for people to pay people smugglers to get across the Med) it would have been worse than Germany alone doing it. The people smugglers are part of the chain before the migrants reach the EU, they're the route across the Med between Turkey and Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
At least with Germany's idiocy not being an EU policy there are other nations doing better things.
So do I so what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
OK that one I wrote to Geegee not you! Hence the "originally posted by GGT" line above it.Quote:
I explicitly wrote that I disagree with the German policies and that "Merkel fucked it up". How can I be more clear?
I agree its a large scale problem. I also think 800k is a number plucked from thin air and could equally be millions if allowed to continue as an open-ended welcome to anyone who pays the people traffickers. It was only tens of thousands months ago and now its 800k and at the rate it was going until Hungary closed the border it was only going up.Quote:
I used the 800K number not to show how good and holy Germany is, but to show the scale of the problem.
Again you're not the only person in this thread and other than the fact that yours was chronologically the first of a multiquote there is no connection there. I thought it was the right etiquette to multiquote rather than double-post.Quote:
Why should I argue for a policy that I am against?
Because you are mixing my opinion with that of others. You act as if I supported Germoney.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You said "If people will stop bringing up Germany", as far as my English skills go, people is plural. That meas the sentence was direct at GGT and others. Maybe if you just would write who you mean instead of writing "people" and "others" it would make the discussion a little easier.Quote:
OK that one I wrote to Geegee not you! Hence the "originally posted by GGT" line above it.
It would be even more if we have open-ended welcome for anyone from the source. The open-ended approach is an approach that simple can't work in the limited reality.Quote:
I agree its a large scale problem. I also think 800k is a number plucked from thin air and could equally be millions if allowed to continue as an open-ended welcome to anyone who pays the people traffickers. It was only tens of thousands months ago and now its 800k and at the rate it was going until Hungary closed the border it was only going up.
Fair enough. I still wanted to clarify my position, as it seemed you thought I was comparing the US to Germany while I was only pointing out the scale of the problem.Quote:
Again you're not the only person in this thread and other than the fact that yours was chronologically the first of a multiquote there is no connection there. I thought it was the right etiquette to multiquote rather than double-post.
So, what do you expect us to do? Build a wall around our borders?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Not everyone is as lucky as you island chimpanzees.
So, an actual vote. That's a big surprise. I wonder what it amounts to once the dust has settled.
1: Take people directly from source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
2: Meet your long-standing international aid obligations.
Which of these are you already doing? Or would you rather let everyone sink or swim to you before they deserve help?
So after today's vote how many extra people are being given safe transport into Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If you only give safe transport to some, why would the rest not try to come here by themselves. If you take in 15K what is with the hundreds of thousands you left back?
You should give safe transport to everyone you're willing to accept and turn back everyone you're not. Why should those who can afford to pay people smugglers and don't drown be the only ones who get refuge?
EDIT: Also a correction it isn't hundreds of thousands left back, it is millions. About nine million refugees have lost their homes in Syria. That is why the number one solution must be in full honouring your obligations and supporting the refugees at source - all millions of them not just tens or hundreds of thousands. If you take in 120k who've already made it to you off their own volition then what is with the rest of the nine million you left back?
They will still come, even if you turn them back.
Switzerland used to have the possibility to ask for asylum at the embassy until 2012 but only a small fraction of immigrants used that way.
They won't come via people smugglers if you offer transport now will they? Do you think only those who can afford to pay people traffickers should get refuge?
You want to offer transport for everyone, even for the ones you won't take?
No. Transport for the ones you will take, prevent them entering or deport the ones you won't take.
You want to offer transport for nobody even the ones you would take?
And how do you select? You realise all 4 million Syrians presently in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are asylum seekers who qualify as refugees under the obligations you have? Or do you mean you are going to select amongst the 7 million displaced Syrians still living in Syria?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, they said they expected 800K applications. They expect that they will give 500K applicants refugee status. Which is less than 1% of their population.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Through normal criteria. Who is the most at risk, at need etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
How do you propose to decide? Who is the least at risk and has the biggest bankwad to pay traffickers? Do you honestly want to defer policy to them?
There are no normal criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Rand, I'm curious: what do you think should be done to the hundreds of thousands of migrants who continue to enter Europe? Should everyone pretend that they don't exist?
If you prevent them entering, this will only increase the income for smugglers. It will also make the transport more risky.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If it is possible to decide that in beforehand, offering transportation would be possible. Switzerland offers a special visa for this kind of situation.Quote:
You want to offer transport for nobody even the ones you would take?
The problem, there is no infrastructure on the field to decide who is allowed to stay.
In the current way asylum is defined by UN and EU, you don't take those that are at most risk or at most need. You need to take anyone who is at sufficient risk or sufficient need.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It is not possibly to reject one person, because another one is more in need. Every asylum seeker is judged individually and independently.
But defining the criteria is the simplest task. You have to register and process every single asylum seeker and decide whether (s)he will be accepted or not. You need personal and infrastructure for that. We simply don't have that available at the source.
I don't think Switzerland is in such a bad situation. German and Austrians are currently looking into our current improvements:Quote:
How do you propose to decide? Who is the least at risk and has the biggest bankwad to pay traffickers? Do you honestly want to defer policy to them?
- http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Warum-es-...e15965091.html
- http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/27587942
What we try is to make the decision making faster. That means, people without any chance to get asylum will get their decision within 48 hours, the final decision will be within a few months. That is, unless the asylum seeker is going to court.
When an asylum seeker is taking the decision to court, it can go on for a very long time, because in Europe, the subprime court for asylum decisions is the European Court of Human Rights. By European human rights, you have to shelter the asylum seeker until a final decision is made.
Now with your model, how do you shelter the asylum seeker until the decision is made? The EU and the US would have to have huge, protected refugee camps with lawyers and judges available on the field to decide which have the right to enter Europe. That's just impracticable.
Indeed. And think of that wonderful system times 28, with people shopping around at 28 separate offices until they hit the right one. No more need to explain why Dublin under present circumstances only is shielding countries that are out of the physical reach of asylum seekers is neither good nor fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Having said that, the EU as a whole should lean heavier on countries that won't take back rejected asylum seekers (i.c. illegal immigrants). We absolutely need to stop the abuse of asylum.
AFAIK the EU is currently evaluating the Swiss system as well. Just to explain how the last reform works.
Preciously asylum seekers where distributed already and the asylum seeking process was implemented by the cantons. The system has switched so that the asylum seeking process has been totally shifted to the federal government. Once asylum is granted the refugees are distributed to the cantons which then distribute them even further to the municipalities. The federal government has build three centers for asylum seekers. It doesn't matter where you register, the process is always the same. And, apart from families, you have no decision on where you end up.
For Dublin to work again, the registration should be different. It still should be only possible to register once. But the "first country to register equals the country you stay" rule must go. That would immediately stop the immigration wave within the EU.
Yeh never mind all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
A modder has released a "Refugees Welcome" roundabout asset to Cities Skylines. :o
http://images.akamai.steamuserconten...FFE4F29B293EE/
Rand, I was saying that being hard on Merkel/Germany is understandable, but it's not very productive. IMO, if the EU had coordinated, comprehensive, forward-looking policies, maybe Turkey wouldn't have become a haven for human smugglers (let alone a "route" terrorists use to get into Syria or Iraq)?
The UNHRC, UNSC, and NATO didn't do such a great job of anticipating millions of war refugees, or that places like Jordan and Lebanon couldn't handle it all, for so many years, either. It's like water following the path of least resistance, until it reaches a dam, and then bursts under the pressure. :(
I still think Saudi Arabia and the UAE should/could have done more to take refugees from their own region. In fact, I wonder why we're still "allies" with the Saudi Kingdom (even though they play a big role in that region's problems and radical extremism), but don't hold them to higher standards? :confused:
And now Putin's Russia is bombing parts of Syria, calling it an anti-ISIS operation, even though it's clearly a pro-Assad operation. How will EU policies respond to that?
It will be deeply concerned.
Appearantly there's a deal in the making between the EU and Turkey that builds on the assumption that there will be a lot more refugees. In the plan Turkey will have to house and feed 2 million refugees (more or all in all isn't quite clear) and will build camps for refugees. Turkey in exchange for that will effectively close off its borders for illegal emigrants and the EU will take in 500,000 refugees from Turkey (rumor has it from the camps).
It's a plan that should have been put in place years ago, and it will not automatically solve all problems, but in the longer run it will make a big difference. In the short run the plan has short-comings that will not stop people from using the services of smugglers; for example, the real possibility that the EU only takes people from the camps, thus not throwing a life line to the thousands upon thousands who presently live in legal limbo in Turkey. I know one person at least who, despite the glimmers of hope, will not wait for the plans to become reality. He has been in Turkey for 18 months and has made zero advance in his attempts to get a job that pays him a living wage or education. Even working as a volunteer went nowhere. For him the equation is simple; he'd likely have to change from a situation where he has his own room (provided to him free of charge) in Istanbul for a bed in a big dorm somewhere in a camp in the middle of nowhere on the hope that he may one day belong to the 25% who get a ticket to a EU country. Recently he decided that a rubber boat to Greece is his better option. And knowing what I know, I can't say that I wouldn't do exactly the same.
LOL what I've been calling for all thread and what the UK has been doing leading by example. Good to see some credible action being taken at last by other nations playing catch up rather than just knee jerk reacting to those making their own dangerous journeys :up:
I never disagreed with you this is the better way, but I still think it's laughable you think that the UK is leading by example by offering asylum to 15.000 on a problem of this scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
96% of the refugees are not in Europe. We can argue over the fractions of the 4% that are being taken by the different nations but providing funding for the 96% is the number one important issue. The most vulnerable that we are offering asylum to through a safe and direct manner is on top of the funding for the 96% of the refugees that are not in Europe.
PS I think you misunderstood the numbers though, we're taking 20k on top of the 5k already taken.
Wow, if you 're good for your word the next few years you may actually take in about as many people as The Netherlands takes in this year alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And just putting people in camps indefinetely is NOT going to keep them 'in the region'.
So what? You're taking relatively a slightly smaller number of the tiny statistically insignificant number of people who've left to go to Europe? And that's all that matters, the world exists outside of Europe, where the 96% of refugees are.
No spending billions of pounds is what is going to help them.
Not that EU policy changes have been resolved....but the US will have to make some changes, too.
Apparently, with help from Christian activists -- Syrian Christians are making their way to Mexico, apply for refugee status, and gain automatic entry to the US. Or they use an underground railroad and get smuggled in without any paperwork. They either don't have visas or they can't be checked with the Syrian government....so it turns into a nightmare scenario where Immigration and National Security policies don't coordinate, let alone jive. :(
Um, since when do Mexicans get automatic entry to the US? :confused:
You missed the point. Our policies are written so that anyone can claim political or religious persecution in their nation of origin, and get automatic "asylum" status in the US. Seeking asylum, even without ID, isn't illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Crossing borders for 'economic' reasons isn't the same thing as seeking refuge/asylum. (Unless you're coming from Cuba :rolleyes:)
You missed the point: stop making shit up. You said Syrians are gaining automatic entry to the US through Mexico. Are you now saying that was a lie?
What I said....is that US policy is to grant "automatic entry" to anyone claiming asylum for political or religious persecution. And that anyone can claim to be a persecuted Syrian Christian, without ID....and how that's a nightmare for our border patrol/immigration/Homeland Security policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So...maybe a better, and more complicated question, is how will the UN change its definitions of refugees, and recommend policy changes?
I dunno about automatic entry, they are being vetted by Glenn Beck and his CIA-guys before being smuggled across the border :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Fun fact about this all is that everybody is still pretending like Turkey is actually a safe country.