• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Europe's migrant dilemma

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,766
Reaction score
9,629
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BBC News - Lampedusa disaster: Europe's migrant dilemma



I'm sure all of you are aware of the tragedy that happened last week off the coast of Lampedusa, Italy where hundreds died trying to reach the Italian coastline. Between 1 January and 30 September this year, 30,100 migrants reached Italy on boats from North Africa and with recent events it opens up the discussion about Europe's asylum system.

"Greece, Italy and Malta have complained that the EU's current asylum system puts an unfair burden on them.
Under the EU's Dublin II Regulation asylum requests have to be handled by the country where the asylum seeker first arrived in the EU."

Currently 90% of asylum seekers are taken in by just 10 EU countries meaning their is plenty of room for improvement from the other states. Since 1988 nearly 20,000 asylum seekers have died on route to Europe, so should the EU be spending more money in the Mediterranean policing these routes or is this not the EU's responsibility? Is it our moral obligation to accept asylum seekers and make their route safer or in this time of financial hardship is it unfair to expect EU members to shell out more money? Should other members be forced to accept asylum seekers so they can share some of the burden with nations like Greece and Italy?
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,910
Reaction score
28,040
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The obvious solution would be a European immigration agency, but there are equally obvious sovereignty issues with that.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The obvious solution would be a European immigration agency, but there are equally obvious sovereignty issues with that.

The problem with asylum seekers is that they never go back.

Take the issue of the iraqi refugees. There is no more war there... well, not really. So they should go back if they came here to seek asylum and refuge from the war. Now some did go, around 30k out of what is close to 1mil iraqi refugees in most European countries. 30.000/1.000.000... not really a whole lot.

All refugees that came to any European country because of problems back home should be sent home when those problems end. Then there could be room for more refugees and asylum seekers. As it stands, Europe can't accomodate anymore especially not Spain, Italy and greece.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The problem with asylum seekers is that they never go back.

Take the issue of the iraqi refugees. There is no more war there... well, not really. So they should go back if they came here to seek asylum and refuge from the war. Now some did go, around 30k out of what is close to 1mil iraqi refugees in most European countries. 30.000/1.000.000... not really a whole lot.

All refugees that came to any European country because of problems back home should be sent home when those problems end. Then there could be room for more refugees and asylum seekers. As it stands, Europe can't accomodate anymore especially not Spain, Italy and greece.

Iraq is a hell hole still with a bubbling civil war.

If you wanted to use an example then you should have used Lebanon, but most Lebanese are not a problem... or Vietnam..
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iraq is a hell hole still with a bubbling civil war.

If you wanted to use an example then you should have used Lebanon, but most Lebanese are not a problem... or Vietnam..

It's not about whether they're a problem or not. Europe is full-up. There is no room to put people who need asylum now. There just isn't. I didn't use lebanon as an example because i don't know, right off the bat, how many people from lebannon or vietnam are in the EU for asylum. I do know how many iraqis are right off the bat.
And those refugees fled the iraqi war, aka, american invasion of iraq, well, that war is pretty much over, their asylum should be up. Everyone who came fleeing from a conflict needs to be deported back to their homeland if that conflict is done.

Some refugees have to go so that other asylum seekers can be granted asylum. Until they're all deported, I say no more refugees regardless of where they're from. And this isn't being unsympathetic, it's about the fact that wherever you have mass number of refugees, like greece and italy, there are massive economic and social issues. If you take those refugees and move them to other EU countries that are in less problems, you'll end up ruining those countries too. No... we need a better, more efficient way to deal with all these issues.
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,766
Reaction score
9,629
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not about whether they're a problem or not. Europe is full-up. There is no room to put people who need asylum now. There just isn't. I didn't use lebanon as an example because i don't know, right off the bat, how many people from lebannon or vietnam are in the EU for asylum. I do know how many iraqis are right off the bat.
And those refugees fled the iraqi war, aka, american invasion of iraq, well, that war is pretty much over, their asylum should be up. Everyone who came fleeing from a conflict needs to be deported back to their homeland if that conflict is done.

Some refugees have to go so that other asylum seekers can be granted asylum. Until they're all deported, I say no more refugees regardless of where they're from. And this isn't being unsympathetic, it's about the fact that wherever you have mass number of refugees, like greece and italy, there are massive economic and social issues. If you take those refugees and move them to other EU countries that are in less problems, you'll end up ruining those countries too. No... we need a better, more efficient way to deal with all these issues.


I'm inclined to agree with you Rainman, the fact of the matter is we don't have enough jobs in western Europe for our own youth never mind the thousands flooding in from Northern Africa and the middle east. I also think its unrealistic to expect countries like Greece, Spain and Italy to shoulder the burden of this problem considering the financial crisis these 3 particular countries are involved in. If we are to keep allowing asylum seekers to flood into Europe then the whole of the EU is going to have to contribute to the issue in some form.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC News - Lampedusa disaster: Europe's migrant dilemma

I'm sure all of you are aware of the tragedy that happened last week off the coast of Lampedusa, Italy where hundreds died trying to reach the Italian coastline. Between 1 January and 30 September this year, 30,100 migrants reached Italy on boats from North Africa and with recent events it opens up the discussion about Europe's asylum system.

It has been a problem for decades. Spain use to get most of the problem, but that changed. Now it is Greece and Italy.. more on this later.

"Greece, Italy and Malta have complained that the EU's current asylum system puts an unfair burden on them.
Under the EU's Dublin II Regulation asylum requests have to be handled by the country where the asylum seeker first arrived in the EU."

Those are the agreements yes. Those agreements were basically demanded by the UK and certain other countries.

Currently 90% of asylum seekers are taken in by just 10 EU countries meaning their is plenty of room for improvement from the other states. Since 1988 nearly 20,000 asylum seekers have died on route to Europe, so should the EU be spending more money in the Mediterranean policing these routes or is this not the EU's responsibility?

There is no EU border police or similar, so it is not the responsibility of the EU because that is how the member countries have decided it should be. It is the responsibility of the individual countries. And 20k is a low number. Many more die just trying to get to the Med to be able to cross.

Is it our moral obligation to accept asylum seekers and make their route safer or in this time of financial hardship is it unfair to expect EU members to shell out more money?

It depends on the type of asylum seeker. 90% of these coming to Europe are economic, and **** them frankly. Now the political ones, yea sure, but they must be told in very clear terms.. when the political aspect is over in their home country then it is time to head home. Of course far from all can do that, but as a principle that should be the goal.

Should other members be forced to accept asylum seekers so they can share some of the burden with nations like Greece and Italy?

As long as there is no real cooperation on the subject then no. Any changes would require a treaty change, which would require referendums and all that stuff.. which means it most likely will fail because of the usual miss-information campaigns going on to these things and that it more than often is about domestic politics and not the subject at hand.

The problem boils down to two things... Turkey and Libya.

Spain has reduced considerably the amount of people coming because of agreements with Morocco who actively go after people smugglers and illegals in Morocco now. They still try to the Canaria Islands, but that is due to lawless territory there which is not 100% controlled by Morocco. This has pushed people east. Now Italy had a similar deal with Gadaffi, but since his fall that deal has gone out the window and well Libya has turned into a peoples smuggler nirvana.

And then there is Turkey. Turkey and Greece have hated each other for centuries and this problem means that Turkey is not exactly enthusiastic in preventing people smuggling over its Greek border... which is rather small relatively. It is ironic that they can close off their Cyprus border so not even animals can cross, but the rest into Greece are open and Turkey does not give a ****.

What it requires is simple. We need to put Turkey in its place and demand that it fix its border and system so that people smuggling that way is stopped even before it gets close to the border. It is easier to have Turkey patrol and prevent as much as possible, the trafficking of illegals than it is to put up walls and mine-fields to prevent people from entering.

And then we need to send the navy to blockade Libya until they get their house in order. Sounds harsh, but there is no other way. This requires multinational support, NATO like coordination and the EU has nothing like this because it is not in the treaty.

At the same time we need to do as the French have done with their former colonies... media and word of mouth campaigns that clearly states... we do not want you and life at home is far superior to anything that they would find in Europe.. which more than often is the truth.

You will never stop people from trying, but you can make it as hard as hell and do everything to discourage them and warn them not to do it.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm inclined to agree with you Rainman, the fact of the matter is we don't have enough jobs in western Europe for our own youth never mind the thousands flooding in from Northern Africa and the middle east. I also think its unrealistic to expect countries like Greece, Spain and Italy to shoulder the burden of this problem considering the financial crisis these 3 particular countries are involved in. If we are to keep allowing asylum seekers to flood into Europe then the whole of the EU is going to have to contribute to the issue in some form.

Well... there are *jobs* in western europe (and all the EU really) in the skilled labor market especially in the STEM field. On the 1st of september exactly I started looking for a job, do some freelancing web development (build up a portfolio) and for the past 3 weeks I have been working on a contract for one local business and I have another contract lined up when I'm done with this one. Once I have a good portfolio built I'm tempted to go to abroad for work. And I wouldn't be stealing anyone's job because there are a lot of contracts put up by many companies for IT careers in many western countries. And those are contracts for people outside of that country/region because there aren't enough ppl or there aren't enough skilled people for those jobs to fill those positions.

What the EU is facing a shortage of jobs is in non-STEM careers and that's where the unemployment is. And ofc, it goes without saying, 99.99% of all refugees and illegal immigrants (refugees that don't get spotted are illegal immigrants basically) are not people who know science, technology or have a medical degree. How do I know that this is the case? because all those who have such degrees get hired legally with contract. This is equally true for nations within the EU and from outside the EU.

And the worse part about the refugee tide is that those that make it unnoticed make it in the hands of the criminal cartels. Human trafficking, criminal gangs, etc. So they will contribute not just to unemployment but also to crime. So it's a double negative. And unlike in math, a double negative doesn't become a plus.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's not about whether they're a problem or not. Europe is full-up. There is no room to put people who need asylum now. There just isn't. I didn't use lebanon as an example because i don't know, right off the bat, how many people from lebannon or vietnam are in the EU for asylum. I do know how many iraqis are right off the bat.

An even better example is Bosnians... Europe still has many many thousands of Bosnian refugees... and that country is peaceful. Point is Iraq is a hell hole.. sending them out as the first is dumb when there are other nationalities that could go first.

And those refugees fled the iraqi war, aka, american invasion of iraq, well, that war is pretty much over, their asylum should be up. Everyone who came fleeing from a conflict needs to be deported back to their homeland if that conflict is done.

To send people back there needs to be peace.. there is not peace and safety. So unless you do a shameful policy change like the Danes did on Iran a few years ago, then it is simply not possible. Of course politicians could just do as the Danes did.. and declare Iran safe for homosexuals and kick out Iranian homosexuals.

Some refugees have to go so that other asylum seekers can be granted asylum. Until they're all deported, I say no more refugees regardless of where they're from. And this isn't being unsympathetic, it's about the fact that wherever you have mass number of refugees, like greece and italy, there are massive economic and social issues. If you take those refugees and move them to other EU countries that are in less problems, you'll end up ruining those countries too. No... we need a better, more efficient way to deal with all these issues.

We could throw them all to the UK or Ireland.. easy to keep them contained there :)
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm inclined to agree with you Rainman, the fact of the matter is we don't have enough jobs in western Europe for our own youth never mind the thousands flooding in from Northern Africa and the middle east.

Actually that is incorrect. There are plenty of jobs, but many are low paying jobs that the locals dont want and that is at the core of the problem. These illegals come here to pick produce in fields, clean streets and so on, jobs that locals dont want.

I also think its unrealistic to expect countries like Greece, Spain and Italy to shoulder the burden of this problem considering the financial crisis these 3 particular countries are involved in. If we are to keep allowing asylum seekers to flood into Europe then the whole of the EU is going to have to contribute to the issue in some form.

Spain sends most back to Morocco now days because of a deal with them. Italy did the same but then we killed Gadaffi and that deal went out the window. That leaves Greece and Malta. Malta benefited from the Italian/Libyan deal... and the leaves Greece.

Greece has a hellish border with Turkey, so anything here needs the full cooperation with Turkey.. and well.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
An even better example is Bosnians... Europe still has many many thousands of Bosnian refugees... and that country is peaceful. Point is Iraq is a hell hole.. sending them out as the first is dumb when there are other nationalities that could go first.

To send people back there needs to be peace.. there is not peace and safety. So unless you do a shameful policy change like the Danes did on Iran a few years ago, then it is simply not possible. Of course politicians could just do as the Danes did.. and declare Iran safe for homosexuals and kick out Iranian homosexuals.

We could throw them all to the UK or Ireland.. easy to keep them contained there :)

Again, sure, if that's the case, get the Bosnians back to Bosnia. make a plan, put some funding in place for it, and send them back. If they were smart, they've learned something in their time in the EU and know what they'll want for their country. It can only lead to a better future for Bosnia.

I don't know how much Iraq is a hellhole. I mean, ok, I will grant you that now that the americans are out, islamist militias are having a field day in some parts of the country. But the iraqis who left Iraq left due to the war, not due to the islamist militia there.
Look, Iraq needs to rebuild itself and it needs to westernize. There is a reason why you don't have christian militias roaming around Europe. what better way to promote a westernizing process in Iraq than to have Iraqis from Europe return, after a decade away from home, with a clear vision in mind for what they want in their country. They want better schools as in whatever country they were. They want coca cola and fish and chips (because a lot of iraqis are in London). They want nestle cereals for breakfast and free and democratic elections, safeguarded by state institutions that work.

Now of course, this could be all wishful thinking. They could end up wanting exactly the opposite. After all.. it is pakistanis and iraqis who form the bulk of islamic extremism in... say London.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, sure, if that's the case, get the Bosnians back to Bosnia. make a plan, put some funding in place for it, and send them back. If they were smart, they've learned something in their time in the EU and know what they'll want for their country. It can only lead to a better future for Bosnia.

There is funding and programs.. they still not going back.

I don't know how much Iraq is a hellhole. I mean, ok, I will grant you that now that the americans are out, islamist militias are having a field day in some parts of the country. But the iraqis who left Iraq left due to the war, not due to the islamist militia there.

There would not be Islamist militias there if it was not for the war.. Hence they are very much related.

Look, Iraq needs to rebuild itself and it needs to westernize.

Iraq was one of the most westernized countries in the Middle East under Saddam. Yes it needs to rebuild it self thanks to the war and sanctions but it aint gonna become "westernized" again any time soon as long as Tehran calls the shots.. and that is thanks to the US invasion.

There is a reason why you don't have christian militias roaming around Europe. what better way to promote a westernizing process in Iraq than to have Iraqis from Europe return, after a decade away from home, with a clear vision in mind for what they want in their country. They want better schools as in whatever country they were. They want coca cola and fish and chips (because a lot of iraqis are in London). They want nestle cereals for breakfast and free and democratic elections, safeguarded by state institutions that work.

Aint gonna work as long as the rest of the population are eating the cool aid coming from the brain dead Iranian mullahs. You forget that Iraq is most tribal, and the only thing holding that in check was Saddam and his dictatorship. We let the genie out of the bottle and now have to live with the consequences.

Now of course, this could be all wishful thinking. They could end up wanting exactly the opposite. After all.. it is pakistanis and iraqis who form the bulk of islamic extremism in... say London.

Well that is mostly home grown crap, even from the Iraqi population who fled Saddam. They were in many cases... religious.

But it is all besides the point, because Iraq is NOT safe, and every country has a principle of not sending people into areas where their lives might be in danger. Of course principles are made to be broken at some point.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is funding and programs.. they still not going back.

There would not be Islamist militias there if it was not for the war.. Hence they are very much related.

Iraq was one of the most westernized countries in the Middle East under Saddam. Yes it needs to rebuild it self thanks to the war and sanctions but it aint gonna become "westernized" again any time soon as long as Tehran calls the shots.. and that is thanks to the US invasion.

Aint gonna work as long as the rest of the population are eating the cool aid coming from the brain dead Iranian mullahs. You forget that Iraq is most tribal, and the only thing holding that in check was Saddam and his dictatorship. We let the genie out of the bottle and now have to live with the consequences.

Well that is mostly home grown crap, even from the Iraqi population who fled Saddam. They were in many cases... religious.

But it is all besides the point, because Iraq is NOT safe, and every country has a principle of not sending people into areas where their lives might be in danger. Of course principles are made to be broken at some point.

Ok, well then replace iraqi in all my prev statements with another nationality that are widespread refugees whose countries of origin have been ****holes and now they're ok/okish. You convinced me that Iraq is still a hellhole and screw it. I won't argue the case for the iraqi but for all the others who fit the criteria. The criteria is what is important, not the specific nationality of the specific refugees.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ok, well then replace iraqi in all my prev statements with another nationality that are widespread refugees whose countries of origin have been ****holes and now they're ok/okish. You convinced me that Iraq is still a hellhole and screw it. I won't argue the case for the iraqi but for all the others who fit the criteria. The criteria is what is important, not the specific nationality of the specific refugees.

And as I have said in most cases there are agreements on shipping them home.. problem is some dont want to go back. Bosnians for example, Lebanese is another and so on. Europe has not been sitting on its flat ass on this issue, far from it. But other than forcing them out, then we have to rely on them going home voluntarily.. and that is provided that the country of origin will even accept them back.

It is sadly not black and white, despite you and me wanting it to be so.

For example, staying with the Iraqi refugees.. many cant return because Iraq wont accept them... because there is no proof that they are in fact Iraqi.
 

Ray410

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
2,565
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Vietnamese and Asian immigration is a huge problem in the United States, kept completely under the rug by the MSM.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually that is incorrect. There are plenty of jobs, but many are low paying jobs that the locals dont want and that is at the core of the problem. These illegals come here to pick produce in fields, clean streets and so on, jobs that locals dont want.



Spain sends most back to Morocco now days because of a deal with them. Italy did the same but then we killed Gadaffi and that deal went out the window. That leaves Greece and Malta. Malta benefited from the Italian/Libyan deal... and the leaves Greece.

Greece has a hellish border with Turkey, so anything here needs the full cooperation with Turkey.. and well.

Interesting point, the immigrants are willing to do the jobs; therefore, the wages don't have to rise. If the immigrants were not there, then the wages would have to rise to a point where the locals were willing to do the job. Of course that creates all sorts of inflation which the government does not want.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The problem with asylum seekers is that they never go back.

Take the issue of the iraqi refugees. There is no more war there... well, not really. So they should go back if they came here to seek asylum and refuge from the war. Now some did go, around 30k out of what is close to 1mil iraqi refugees in most European countries. 30.000/1.000.000... not really a whole lot.

All refugees that came to any European country because of problems back home should be sent home when those problems end. Then there could be room for more refugees and asylum seekers. As it stands, Europe can't accomodate anymore especially not Spain, Italy and greece.

what a disappointing comment
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Interesting point, the immigrants are willing to do the jobs; therefore, the wages don't have to rise. If the immigrants were not there, then the wages would have to rise to a point where the locals were willing to do the job. Of course that creates all sorts of inflation which the government does not want.

Wages have to be at minimum wage.... just saying. Problem is of course, like in the US, the companies that exploit illegals at a lower wage than minimum wage.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,363
Reaction score
36,825
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is the same problem as opening your home to a family in trouble. What is meant as a means of assistance and refuge often becomes permanent, a drain on finances and ability to support your own family, and then...stuff gets really interesting when they decide they dont like how you run your home and demand the right to do things differently.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,910
Reaction score
28,040
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There is a world of difference between seeking asylum from some form of violence or oppression, and migrating for economic reasons. The end result to closing the doors would be similar, they would die conveniently far enough away to be ignored.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
9,679
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- Should other members be forced to accept asylum seekers so they can share some of the burden with nations like Greece and Italy?

Considering that most genuine asylum seekers (not economic migrants) get refuge in neighbouring countries to their country of origin, the real solution is to help those countries where asylum seekers first go. The countries the World Bank considers as having the largest asylum seekers are not EU countries but places like Pakistan, Jordan, Iran etc. Better to offer help and even development capital to these countries so that asylum seekers find refuge quickly and near to home.

Even better to put real pressure on the countries where asylum seekers are escaping from to change and in that way stem the problem. Trouble is - many of the countries that economic and asylum refugees come from have good friends in industry and power here and in other parts of the developed world and there is no real interest in solving the economic problems in mineral rich countries so that people see no need to migrate for a better life.
 
Top Bottom