Support NeoGAF

[hydrophilic attack]

Vast majority of them are not even refugees.

Citation needed

 

[iceatcs]

So getting more rooms and beds isn't an option?

Building accommodate might take some time. No one want to live in the camp. All they want is own room with roof, and job or welfare.

Most EU can make 50000 new home every year. That's about 200000 people just enough for Sweden and likely no spare for migrants.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, if you consider it in its entirety it means that you also have to contribute something.

Not sure what you mean by contributing, Do you just mean funding the EU parliament or by increasing prosperity with trade or labour?

 

[forms]

Not sure what you mean by contributing, Do you just mean funding the EU parliament or by increasing prosperity with trade or labour?

Well, in the given scenario it means helping ones fellow EU countries in times of crisis. As in: accepting refugees.

 

[tokkun]

To give some perspective to Americans reading, that is the equivalent of 6 million refugees in population % terms.

I don't understand why the US aren't taking more given their history if taking the displaced and their (and Britain's) involvement in destabilising the middle east.

The US takes 70,000 refugees per year. They increased the number of refugees they will accept next year by 30,000.

The main issue is that the US requires security background checks on refugees due to fears over terrorism that started with 9/11, but have been kept alive with events like the Boston Marathon bombing. This makes it difficult for the US to rapidly scale up the number of refugees they admit.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, in the given scenario it means helping ones fellow EU countries in times of crisis. As in: accepting refugees.

But no refugees are fleeing from EU countries.

 

[Condom]

But no refugees are fleeing from EU countries.

Don't be like that. You know very well what he is talking about.

 

[Giant Panda]

No.




They're already making the fresh arrivals sleep on the floors of the immigration offices.

That doesn't mean they can't get beds.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Don't be like that. You know very well what he is talking about.

No I'm not really sure. It's an obligation for Hungary to take in economic migrants from outside the EU when they don't have jobs for them because it benefits the EU as a whole? Honestly it is hard for me to swallow. The migrants don't even want to be in Hungary.

 

[Nivash]

No I'm not really sure. It's an obligation for Hungary to take in economic migrants from outside the EU when they don't have jobs for them because it benefits the EU as a whole? Honestly it is hard for me to swallow. The migrants don't even want to be in Hungary.

Who's talking about economic migrants? All EU countries have a responsibility to grant asylum to refugees. It's in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

[Zaph]

Citation needed

It probably depends which citizens you define as being eligible for asylum/refugee status, but Eurostat puts Syrians at 21% of all asylum seekers arriving in the EU during Q2 2015. Afghanistan is at 13%, Iraq 6%. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docume...P-EN.pdf/b0377f79-f06d-4263-aa5b-cc9b4f6a838f (page 3).

Add to that, Germany estimates 30% of those claiming to be Syrian are from other countries.

Syria is a relatively small country (~22m) and Turkey/Jordan/Georgia still have the vast majority of their refugees. Given the numbers we're seeing arrive in Europe, it would be ridiculous to think they're not mostly economic migrants, even if you take into account refugees from the aforementioned countries.

 

[Henkka]

There are apparently 27 000 immigrant children who came without parents or guardians. One of reasons why border control was introduced that many of these children are missing. They haven't announced themselves and are living somewhere in Sweden, undocumented. Disturbing.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It probably depends which citizens you define as being eligible for asylum/refugee status, but Eurostat puts Syrians at 21% of all asylum seekers arriving in the EU during Q2 2015. Afghanistan is at 13%, Iraq 6%. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docume...P-EN.pdf/b0377f79-f06d-4263-aa5b-cc9b4f6a838f (page 3).

Add to that, Germany estimates 30% of those claiming to be Syrian are from other countries.

Syria is a relatively small country (~22m) and Turkey/Jordan/Georgia still have the vast majority of their refugees. Given the numbers we're seeing arrive in Europe, it would be ridiculous to think they're not mostly economic migrants, even if you take into account refugees from the aforementioned countries.

Syria is not the only place in the world in which there is conflict. And there may be legitimate asylum cause even for people from countries in which there is no active conflict, for example among LGBT people in countries with repressive regimes.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Who's talking about economic migrants? All EU countries have a responsibility to grant asylum to refugees. It's in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

These people do not want to be in these countries who are "not doing their part." So they would have to be held there in camps with guards. Probably with guns pointing inwards. Doesn't sound progressive to me.

Those countries who are not doing there share would also have to go through lengthy processes to make sure the asylum claims are genuine and deport people who are not. This puts a lot of strain on them and is dirty unpopular work.

I'm really struggling to see how the popular position on Neogaf is to force poor countries to host ugly concentration camps for no cost.

 

[Nivash]

These people do not want to be in these countries who are "not doing their part." So they would have to be held there in camps with guards. Probably with guns pointing inwards. Doesn't sound progressive to me.

Those countries who are not doing there share would also have to go through lengthy processes to make sure the asylum claims are genuine and deport people who are not. This puts a lot of strain on them and is dirty unpopular work.

I'm really struggling to see how the popular position on Neogaf is to force poor countries to host ugly concentration camps for no cost.

All countries have to go through lengthy processes to determine which refugees get to stay, that's just how it's done. What, you didn't actually think Sweden and Germany actually allowed everyone in, right? Just the ones who have legitimate refugee status.

If the EU instates a common asylum process we would have no need for "concentration camps" either for that matter because it wouldn't be possible to ask for asylum in any specific country anyway, but of course the countries that are already taking in the fewest refugees are also the greatest opponents to such a system.

 

[Circle Jerk]

Syria is not the only place in the world in which there is conflict. And there may be legitimate asylum cause even for people from countries in which there is no active conflict, for example among LGBT people in countries with repressive regimes.

So if you're gonna ask for citations, why not give a citation for this?

 

[Zaph]

Syria is not the only place in the world in which there is conflict. And there may be legitimate asylum cause even for people from countries in which there is no active conflict, for example among LGBT people in countries with repressive regimes.

Which is exactly what I said throughout the post, including a list of the contributing countries. If you look down the list, the third highest is Albania, which is a pretty much a blanket asylum rejection.

In fact, 40% of Germany's asylum applications this year were from the Balklands, a conflict-free region (but in poor economic condition). Unless they have an incredibly high percentage of LGBT citizens, it's clearly economic migration.

 

[Moronwind]

So getting more rooms and beds isn't an option?

Snap your fingers and make it happen.
I'm sure generous immigration is very beneficial if you're Singapore, but for a European style welfare I'm not so sure. In Sweden at least I believe the numbers have shown immigrants to be a net cost.

We accept refugees for exclusively humanitarian reasons.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

All countries have to go through lengthy processes to determine which refugees get to stay, that's just how it's done. What, you didn't actually think Sweden and Germany actually allowed everyone in, right? Just the ones who have legitimate refugee status.

If the EU instates a common asylum process we would have no need for "concentration camps" either for that matter because it wouldn't be possible to ask for asylum in any specific country anyway, but of course the countries that are already taking in the fewest refugees are also the greatest opponents to such a system.

If people are free to leave they will go to Sweden because it is the country they want to go to. They will skip the asylum process in the other country and leave to apply in Sweden.

In terms of accepting genuine refugees it would be much better to fast track the more vulnerable people suffering in refugee camps closer to conflict. But the real reason that countries like Sweden and Germany claim to be open to people who make the long expensive journey is that they want the "cream" who will be a benefit to their economies.

 

[Nivash]

If people are free to leave they will go to Sweden because it is the country they want to go to. They will skip the asylum process in the other country and leave to apply in Sweden.

That wouldnt be possible with a uniform EU process because you wouldn't be applying for asylum in any one country but in the EU as a whole. Refugees would then be assigned to the member states based on need and their ability to care for them, with poorer states being helped economically. Freedom of movement and settlement only applies to EU citizens, not all EU residents, so they wouldn't be able to just move on.

In terms of accepting genuine refugees it would be much better to fast track the more vulnerable people suffering in refugee camps closer to conflict. But the real reason that countries like Sweden and Germany claim to be open to people who make the long expensive journey is that they want the "cream" who will be a benefit to their economies.

I agree that the EU should arrange for safe travel from the refugee camps. I can however assure you that Sweden isn't accepting refugees because we think we're profiting, everyone agrees that it will take decades for that to happen (if it ever does) and that it will cost us in the meantime. However, we have a moral and legal obligation to help people fleeing from wars and persecution.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

So if you're gonna ask for citations, why not give a citation for this?

Do I really need to provide a citation for Syria not being the only conflict region in the world? That should really go without saying. The fact that the media focus is now on Syria doesn't mean that everywhere else in the World is peaceful. Fine, here you go..

Which is exactly what I said throughout the post, including a list of the contributing countries. If you look down the list, the third highest is Albania, which is a pretty much a blanket asylum rejection.

In fact, 40% of Germany's asylum applications this year were from the Balklands, a conflict-free region (but in poor economic condition). Unless they have an incredibly high percentage of LGBT citizens, it's clearly economic migration.

Thank you for providing a source. And while you may know that people from other areas have legitimate asylum cause it seems a lot of others don't. Some posters (e.g. Kitch9) just say that several asylum seekers are not from Syria, and that's all they need to say that it's all bullshit, let's close our borders now.

But thanks for providing a source. Still 40% is not a vast majority, which the guy I posted claimed without source.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

Which is exactly what I said throughout the post, including a list of the contributing countries. If you look down the list, the third highest is Albania, which is a pretty much a blanket asylum rejection.

In fact, 40% of Germany's asylum applications this year were from the Balklands, a conflict-free region (but in poor economic condition). Unless they have an incredibly high percentage of LGBT citizens, it's clearly economic migration.

According to that chart you referred to in the original post, The Balkan asylum applications account for 15% of all asylum seekers in the EU during the second quarter (and note that it wasn't until Q3 that shit really hit the fan). That means 85% are from countries OTHER than these poor but safe countries (if we're not going to get into the whole Roma-discussion).

Saying that the majority of migrants now arriving are not refugees does simply not have any basis in those stats you supplied.

If we're going to look at Sweden, which the article was actually about, the Balkans account for 4% of this year's asylum seekers. Up until October. http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Migrationsverket/Statistik/Asylsokande---de-storsta-landerna.html

Now, there are definitely people claiming being from Syria which aren't. But estimating how many of those are legit is pretty hard. If we assume it's 30%, which I think is massively over-estimating and remove them from the number asylum applications from "Syrians" so far this year in Sweden, you'd still only reduce the total amount of refugees by 10%.

Basically, the citations did nothing to prove the claim that was being questioned.

But thanks for providing a source. Still 40% is not a vast majority, which the guy I posted claimed without source.

40% of applications to Germany are from the Balkans. In the second quarter of 2015. On an EU level that number is just 15%, because most Balkan asylum seekers go for Germany.

Essentially, the stat is both outdated and not representative of the refugee situation in the EU as a whole, nor Sweden.

If the discussion was about Germany, that source would have been helpful. Used as it is now it's plain misleading.

 

[quackamole]

I was talking about politicians. And maybe it was naive, but Republicans are currently the ones that have caught the buttmad about immigrants. Maybe some dem politicians would become anti-immigration to if it were the case, but then I wouldn't really have a favorable opinion towards them either.

In a post 911 US, mass immigration from the middle east is politically impossible.

 

[quackamole]

Syria is not the only place in the world in which there is conflict. And there may be legitimate asylum cause even for people from countries in which there is no active conflict, for example among LGBT people in countries with repressive regimes.

I hate to say it but if Europe is to take in all the millions of refugees in the world, or event just a big chunk of them, it would instantly kill their systems and probably bankrupt a bunch of the EU countries.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

I hate to say it but if Europe is to take in all the millions of refugees in the world, or event just a big chunk of them, it would instantly kill their systems and probably bankrupt a bunch of the EU countries.

Citation?

 

[RoadHazard]

That is unfortunate. For economic and humanitarian reasons more economic and refugee migrants should be welcomed. Most research does support the conclusion that immigration of all kinds is a net benefit. To me it looks like these controls are being placed for political reasons than more practical ones.

We have literally run out of rooms to put refugees in. We are building tent camps now. And with up to 2000 people arriving daily, how could we ever catch up (we already had a major housing crisis here in Sweden before all this started)? Asylum decisions take ~1.5 years (for now - it will only get worse), and it takes many years for the average immigrant to get a job (if they ever do - many stay on welfare indefinitely). The government is planning to take out billion dollar loans to cover just the immediate crisis. We're way past the point where this could ever be an economic gain for us. It's nothing but a huge burden on our society, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

40% of applications to Germany are from the Balkans. In the second quarter of 2015. On an EU level that number is just 15%, because most Balkan asylum seekers go for Germany.

Essentially, the stat is both outdated and not representative of the refugee situation in the EU as a whole, nor Sweden.

If the discussion was about Germany, that source would have been helpful. Used as it is now it's plain misleading.

Good point, thanks!

I hate to say it but if Europe is to take in all the millions of refugees in the world, or event just a big chunk of them, it would instantly kill their systems and probably bankrupt a bunch of the EU countries.

The EU contains 507 million citizens distributed over 28 countries. We could take in a few million people without it leading to a doomsday scenario if the burden is distributed relatively equally between different countries. Put in an EU-budget level support system to help finance the immigration and integration process to support the poorer countries. We can totally do it. The situation is only unsustainable if all of the burden has to be shouldered by a few countries (Germany, Austria, Sweden plus Mediterranean countries) while the rest do nothing. Countries like the UK and France ought to be ashamed of how little they are doing.

 

[eot]

In terms of accepting genuine refugees it would be much better to fast track the more vulnerable people suffering in refugee camps closer to conflict. But the real reason that countries like Sweden and Germany claim to be open to people who make the long expensive journey is that they want the "cream" who will be a benefit to their economies.

This is nonsense. We don't have the resources to airlift entire refugee camps over here just to set up new ones (that would be a logistical nightmare anyway), and the effect of the few highly educated people who arrive do little to offset the cost of the masses of people who can't and probably won't be able to support themselves.

 

[CadetMahoney]

how will "border checks" stop refugees coming in?

just by being a refugee fleeing from conflict theres a good chance you won't have a passport on you. It would be rediculous for someone to be refused entry/deported for not having a passport where do they go?

 

[Joni]

how will "border checks" stop refugees coming in?

just by being a refugee fleeing from conflict theres a good chance you won't have a passport on you. It would be rediculous for someone to be refused entry/deported for not having a passport where do they go?

Identity cards are mandatory in big parts of Europe, and you need to be able to proof your identity if requested by the police. Don't need a passport, but still some sort of ID.

 

[Pachimari]

So can you enter Sweden with a passport alone? Or do you need ID?

 

[CadetMahoney]

So can you enter Sweden with a passport alone? Or do you need ID?

Normally not, but in this particular political "refugee crisis" instance I don't see how they could turn away people without passports. If someone is allowed to come in because they're fleeing conflict, it wouldn't make sense to make it all hinge on having a passport or not (moral obligation etc).

Also the qualifier for a drivers license (for example) is to send your passport in, which I assume is similar for any serious ID cards. It's quite common for people applying for asylum in other countries like UK not to have a passport who entered without ID iirc.

 

[Valhelm]

Citation needed

"Refugee" is impossible to define, but at least 40% of the migrants coming to Europe aren't native to Syria or Iraq. Some studies might suggest that only a minority of refugees come from those places, but I haven't seen them.

 

[Makai]

What does asylum look like? Do refugees start looking for work on arrival, or do governments give more help?

 

[benjipwns]

What does asylum look like? Do refugees start looking for work on arrival, or do governments give more help?

It depends on the state. I imagine the more expansive welfare states would provide more immediate benefits than the lesser.

I want to say Sweden (but perhaps Norway) provides rather extensive housing that would anger most Americans but less so than provided to their citizens. But I got that from a book and some articles. That said, the same stressed that the governments basically ignore many of these migrants once they're signed up for programs. And they aren't settled nearer to the population so they have less access to transit/etc.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensta

Tensta has a large concentration of immigrants, high rates of unemployed and people on social welfare.[3] The open unemployment rate is 43.5% (2009) and the rate of people on social welfare is 40.2% (1999). In 1999 the employment rate was 44%.[3] Immigrants make up 66% of the population and 95%-100% of the children in local schools are of foreign origin

 

[CadetMahoney]

What does asylum look like? Do refugees start looking for work on arrival, or do governments give more help?

If you're given actual refugee status you can work just like a citizen. Otherwsie you're not allowed to work or even study. Can you believe that, you're not allowed to educate yourself! Go on a course whatevers. . .

That's why many countries like UK are Nazi level strict on giving refugee status, which bypasses a lot of the draconian measures and time restrictions a "standard immigrant" have to battle through. If you're applying to become a refugee you're an "Asylum Seeker" and cannot work legally (you're claiming asylum, fleeing from war etc.)

The government trolls them though, putting asylum seekers in legal limbo for like 5+ years and stuff. They have to await a decision.

How long does it take for a decision to be reached? 5 years or something. With a huge backlog it would be like 10 years not being able to work or even study legally. 1.5+ million won't be processed very quickly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...asylum-seekers-are-left-in-limbo-9824344.html

I just want to be able to go back to school and to start a job. That’s my hope, I just don’t know when it will happen.”

Being in legal limbo (can't work, can't study, can't get a bank account, can't rent a house) is so bad you've got immigration lawyers on behalf of immigration clients arguing against the home office that they won't deport them:

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/refusal-but-with-no-removal-or-appeal/

As an aside, I have to say that it is a funny old world where immigration lawyers are arguing in court on behalf of their clients against the Home Office for the Home Office to remove them. But there we go.

Now imagine sweden and germany flooded with applicants they can't feasibly process in a reasonable timeframe. 1.5milllion! The exrta security panic won't help either.

 

[King Endymion]

As someone who works with refugees (though they have been here about a year), I'm ashamed of living in Sweden for the first time ever.
We can't even help the ones who are here, they can't get their own housing which means they can't go to Swedish classes which means they're stuck in a dead zone.
Something should have been done a long time ago.

 

[Drencrom]

As someone who works with refugees (though they have been here about a year), I'm ashamed of living in Sweden for the first time ever.
We can't even help the ones who are here, they can't get their own housing which means they can't go to Swedish classes which means they're stuck in a dead zone.
Something should have been done a long time ago.

Really sad to hear that. This is one of reasons why it's important we have to take in less migrants. If these people we've already taken in can't even get an education and housing they're screwed and it will only get worse if it stays like this for everyone.

 

[Nivash]

Really sad to hear that. This is one of reasons why it's important we have to take in less migrants. If these people we've already taken in can't even get an education and housing they're screwed and it will only get worse if it stays like this for everyone.

No, this is the reason other countries in the EU need to take in more refugees. The countries they transit through like Turkey and Lebanon can't give the refugees any of the things you mentioned either. Refugees in Turkey are forbidden from working because they are not allowed to apply for asylum and the majority of their children have no school to go to.

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...bs-2-million-refugees-but-says-they-cant-stay

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/syrian-refugees-school-turkey-151109101947670.html

This is a consequence of Turkey currently caring for three times as many refugees as the entire EU (2 million!) and obviously not having anywhere near the resources for it. And no, sending money to the camps wouldn't cut it. You can't keep millions of people in camps forever and 90 % of the refugees in Turkey aren't in the camps anyway, they're scattered in cities across the country.

Compared to that the situation even in Sweden is still better.

 

[Drencrom]

No, this is the reason other countries in the EU need to take in more refugees. The countries they transit through like Turkey and Lebanon can't give the refugees any of the things you mentioned either. Refugees in Turkey are forbidden from working because they are not allowed to apply for asylum and the majority of their children have no school to go to.

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...bs-2-million-refugees-but-says-they-cant-stay

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/syrian-refugees-school-turkey-151109101947670.html

This is a consequence of Turkey currently caring for three times as many refugees as the entire EU (2 million!) and obviously not having anywhere near the resources for it. And no, sending money to the camps wouldn't cut it. You can't keep millions of people in camps forever and 90 % of the refugees in Turkey aren't in the camps anyway, they're scattered in cities across the country.

Compared to that the situation even in Sweden is still better.

I was specifically talking about Sweden taking in less refugees, not EU.

Also, just because the situation isn't as bad as in Turkey doesn't make our situation any better or acceptable. We're still overencumbered as it logistically at this point, it just isn't sustainable.