[Zelandakh]

phil_20686, on 2015-September-04, 05:45, said:

We have the same thing in Europe right now. In the UK...

It is actually much worse than this Phil. The truth is that if all of the immigrants left the UK tomorrow the economy would collapse, not only because of the loss of skilled labour, but also because the UK economy is in no small part built on house prices and it is immigrants that help to keep this falling into negative equity. But it is natural for people to be fearful in times of economic depression. That has always been the case and will still be the case after we are gone. It is simply human nature - it does not have to be based on any rational line of thought.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2015-August-31, 10:40, said:

I have a niece with dual citizenship, US and Japanese. From the Japanese viewpoint, she was supposed to choose one or the other at age 22, but few bother to do that. (Don't ask, don't tell.) But even if she simply gives up her US passport to placate the Japanese, she remains a US citizen. I don't want that to change for future generations.

Her husband is a Korean national who lives in New York City, but our niece spends a good part of each year in Italy. She is a scholar of Italian literature. (Her parents love Italy, and she traveled there growing up.)

It is difficult not to fall in love with Italy.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-04, 08:01, said:

It is difficult not to fall in love with Italy.

Yes, why even try?

When our niece (Constance's brother's daughter) was doing her graduate work in Italy, Constance's mom was still alive and went over to visit her for a few weeks and fell in love with Italy too.

[kenberg]

Kids are useful. My older daughter spent her junior college year in Spain, so I visited during winter break. if not for Ruth I probably would never have skied in the Sierra Nevada.

[barmar]

I heard a story about the refugee crisis in Europe on public radio a day or two ago. They said that if the UK allowed in all the refugees who want to go there, they could see their population grow by 30-35% (from 60 million to 80-85 million) in the next decade or so. That's quite a bit to absorb for such a small country.

In the US, it's obviously not such a serious problem. We're a much bigger country, so we can absorb more. Illegal immigrants currently account for about 3.5% of our population, and about half of them are Mexican. But children of illegal immigrants account for about 7% of grade school children, so we're footing the bill for lots of them. About 80% of these children are anchor babies.

Source http://www.pewresear...ion-in-the-u-s/

[mike777]

phil_20686, on 2015-September-04, 05:45, said:

I really truly do not understand how immigration has become a problem in the US and Europe. In both cases, you have large, extremely rich zones surrounded by a handful of troubled countries with populations a fraction of their size.

Take the US, it has two land boarders, and the one with canada doesnt really matter to this debate.

So you have mexico, population 120m, next to the US, population 350m. The US has about 5 million babies a year, and net population growth of 3m a year. If you just opened the boarder to mexicans, how many do you think would come? 10% of the population over a few years? Even if you got 5m a year for three or four years, it would quickly stabilise, as mexicans might come to the US to work, but then they would probably want to go back to mexico and start their own businesses. In order to imagine that this would some vast problem, you have to think that mexico would be almost entirely depopulated. If you got something similar to the experience of the EU enlargement, most people would barely notice. The US has flexible and dynamic labour markets and vast reserves of capital. It creates 200-300 thousand new jobs every month. You really think that some disaster would happen if the US economy had to absorb 20m new workers over a decade? Obviously not, as as that's only a fraction of the US's natural population growth.

Somehow everyone has got the idea that mass immigration would be some terrible problem. In reality it would be a non event.

We have the same thing in Europe right now. In the UK politicians discussing the Syria refugee crises quote migration numbers, primarily made up of EU citizens exercising their right to work here. They aren't even the net figures, which are close to flat for the UK since a huge number of Uk citizens go as Ex pats to the south of France or to work in various EU cities. As if well off EU citizens moving to london are remotely comparable to Syrian refugees. The EU could absorb the entire population of Syria (25m pre war) and most people would never meet one. As for absorbing the 2-5m people displaced by a bloody civil war, that is a rounding error in the population of the European Union.

Turkey, a much poorer nation aspiring to EU membership has absorbed 2 million Syrian refugees. But a rich population block of Five Hundred Million People, can't absorb the 1.5 million that have made it to the EU without a political crisis. Its a farce.

This xenophobic narrative that has taken hold in mainstream European politics is almost completely nonsense. We should be giving every Syrian and Libyan refugee an EU visa no questions asked, and spreading them out around the EU so they do not place a localised burden on a particular city or job market. If we did that, people would see that this is a complete non event. Like the tabloids prediction of a flood of eastern European migrants to the UK was a total non-event.

Just to be clear mass immigration need not only come from Mexico. There is a large land mass south of Mexico where many immigrants come from. Also about 40% of illegals come via airplanes from around the world.


With all of that said I think your main points repeats what has been stated in this thread over and over again.

One big problem is countries such as Turkey andmany others are not really absorbing them. They put them up in outside camps cut off from society.

-----

Interesting article today about Syrians going to Russian Artic Circle and crossing into Northern Norway pedaling bikes.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2015-September-04, 15:13, said:

One big problem is countries such as Turkey and many others are not really absorbing them. They put them up in outside camps cut off from society.

Do you understand the sheer size of the refugee problem?

Well over three million Syrians have fled their country.
One out of every four people in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee.

These are poor countries. What magic wand are their supposed to wave to create housing, jobs, and infrastructure?

[mike777]

Thus as I stated a big problem.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-September-04, 13:16, said:

Kids are useful. My older daughter spent her junior college year in Spain, so I visited during winter break. if not for Ruth I probably would never have skied in the Sierra Nevada.

Reminds me of a W.C. Fields quotation: "I like children....girl children....around eighteen to twenty..."

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-September-04, 14:59, said:

I heard a story about the refugee crisis in Europe on public radio a day or two ago. They said that if the UK allowed in all the refugees who want to go there, they could see their population grow by 30-35% (from 60 million to 80-85 million) in the next decade or so. That's quite a bit to absorb for such a small country.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear in the media. There is an awful lot of scaremongering going on within the UK for political purposes.

[Gerben42]

mike777, on 2015-September-04, 15:13, said:

Just to be clear mass immigration need not only come from Mexico. There is a large land mass south of Mexico where many immigrants come from. Also about 40% of illegals come via airplanes from around the world.


With all of that said I think your main points repeats what has been stated in this thread over and over again.

One big problem is countries such as Turkey andmany others are not really absorbing them. They put them up in outside camps cut off from society.

-----

Interesting article today about Syrians going to Russian Artic Circle and crossing into Northern Norway pedaling bikes.

The European immigration crisis is very complex. Western Europe is very rich and the countries surrounding the EU are all a mess. Syria and Lybia are failed states, the Sahara region is dominated by groups like Boko Haram, Ukraine is at war, The non EU Balkan states are very poor. Egypt is unstable, Turkey is inching towards dictatorship.

Ergo: Everyone wants to come to Europe. Now the EU is not one country but 27. And although it is a union, country leaders are just that: They are elected by their citizens. Complication comes from the Dublin agreement which is the main source of the fight between the different countries.

It states that refugees entering the EU shall be registered in the country where they arrive. The countries closest to the crisis areas are Greece and Italy. For Balkan refugees it is Hungary.
As Greece is practically broke they can't handle it. Besides the refugees want to go to the rich EU countries particularly Germany and UK.

Eastern Europe isn't welcoming any (mainly Muslim) refugees, the main reason for this is that they don't know any foreigners. Western Europe had a large influx of immigrants in the 60s but in the former communist countries there were no immigrants. There is large hostility against immigrants in theses countries (and former GDR). and because of Dublin they re not required to take in any... Except Hungary (which fixed the problem with a border fence to Serbia).

It is clear that these people need help and esp. Greece cannot offer this. Also Germany and UK should not take up all the refugees. To force the issue, countries are introducing border patrols again. On top of the humanitarian problem, this crisis may test the EU even more than the financial crisis.

[Al_U_Card]

Every news story shown here has refugees that look more like emigres with their designer clothes, train tickets etc. It is understandable that people of means wish to distance themselves from conflict but it seems that refugee implies those in imminent danger, forcibly displaced or political targets.
Is the seemingly concerted effort to make news of economic migration really as unusual as it is being presented?

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-18, 16:53, said:

Every news story shown here has refugees that look more like emigres with their designer clothes, train tickets etc. It is understandable that people of means wish to distance themselves from conflict but it seems that refugee implies those in imminent danger, forcibly displaced or political targets.
Is the seemingly concerted effort to make news of economic migration really as unusual as it is being presented?

Read this. It explains some of the history and details of refugee status for those fleeing war.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on 2015-September-18, 11:21, said:

The European immigration crisis is very complex. Western Europe is very rich and the countries surrounding the EU are all a mess. Syria and Lybia are failed states, the Sahara region is dominated by groups like Boko Haram, Ukraine is at war, The non EU Balkan states are very poor. Egypt is unstable, Turkey is inching towards dictatorship.

Ergo: Everyone wants to come to Europe. Now the EU is not one country but 27. And although it is a union, country leaders are just that: They are elected by their citizens. Complication comes from the Dublin agreement which is the main source of the fight between the different countries.

It states that refugees entering the EU shall be registered in the country where they arrive. The countries closest to the crisis areas are Greece and Italy. For Balkan refugees it is Hungary.
As Greece is practically broke they can't handle it. Besides the refugees want to go to the rich EU countries particularly Germany and UK.

Eastern Europe isn't welcoming any (mainly Muslim) refugees, the main reason for this is that they don't know any foreigners. Western Europe had a large influx of immigrants in the 60s but in the former communist countries there were no immigrants. There is large hostility against immigrants in theses countries (and former GDR). and because of Dublin they re not required to take in any... Except Hungary (which fixed the problem with a border fence to Serbia).

It is clear that these people need help and esp. Greece cannot offer this. Also Germany and UK should not take up all the refugees. To force the issue, countries are introducing border patrols again. On top of the humanitarian problem, this crisis may test the EU even more than the financial crisis.

A question:
"It states that refugees entering the EU shall be registered in the country where they arrive. "
On the face of it, this is not the same as saying that the country where they arrive then assumes long term responsibility for them. Sequence:
They leave their home country and arrive somewhere, in country X
They register in country X.
There is an evaluation of their request for refugee status.
If they are accepted as refugees, they are place somewhere.

Am I correct in assuming that the evaluation is done by some international body rather than only by country X? And am I correct in assuming that when/if they are accepted their placement could and often would be someplace other than in country X?

The above are honest questions, I try not to ask cute questions. I really don't know just how this all goes, or was planned to go. And I understand that with the number of people involved the best laid plans....

Added: A follow-up occurred to me. It's been a long time since I have gone from one country to another in Europe. Then, passports were produced at border crossings. Now I gather that it is much easier. So if a refugee was given legal refugees status in Greece he could easily (maybe legally) move to Paris?
If someone is legally entitled to be in the US, then he is legally entitled to be in the state of his choosing. I think it is not quite that way in the EU but I am unclear about what is the case.

[gwnn]

I hate this issue, I hate the way Orbán is demonising the migrants/refugees but I also hate the way some parts of the media are portraying the building of the "fence." It turns out Serbia is not a war zone and I don't think it's fair to show the refugees as fleeing for their lives once they've crossed already something like 5 borders to try to get through another 2 (I don't think refugees should get to point to a country on the map and choose where they want to seek refuge, at least not to Germany and Sweden (look at the map and you'll see ehat I mean)). No, sorry, I don't think this is a life and death situation and it would makes much more sense to have a fast and efficient way to process the migrants and divide them quickly. It is true that Hungary is saying that "we are a Christian nation so Muslims are not welcome" and they should be reprimanded for that and it should be explained to them that their "Christian" character will not be challenged by feeding and clothing let's say 10,000 poor people (on the contrary.). Anyway this probably sounds all too familiar in America which according to half the country, despite all evidence, was "founded on Judeo-Christian values" but well Orbán probably has enough coverage from the Constitution since he's rewritten it enough times in the past 5 years. Am I rambling enough now?

[gwnn]

And yes I know how stupid it sounds if the worst thing I can mention of tens/hundreds of thousands of desolate people dying and starving that I somehow hate the whole issue because I can't pick a side all the way.

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2015-September-19, 00:10, said:

And yes I know how stupid it sounds if the worst thing I can mention of tens/hundreds of thousands of desolate people dying and starving that I somehow hate the whole issue because I can't pick a side all the way.

Europe and many others choose long long ago to put their heads in the ground. See these forums where this was discussed often.


NOne I repeat none of this is a surprise....we discuss this stuff often in these forums.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-18, 17:36, said:

Read this. It explains some of the history and details of refugee status for those fleeing war.

The photo on the page link does justice to the term refugee. Poor, displaced and downtrodden. Maybe taken in Darfur? (Real refugees as opposed to "fill in the news cycle with the latest blurb about something from someplace....etc.) The EU has more government than you can shake a stick at so they may end up hiring all of the incoming as civil-servants...or just plain old servants? lol

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-19, 07:02, said:

The photo on the page link does justice to the term refugee. Poor, displaced and downtrodden.

Why do you think your definition of the term is more valid than that of the UN (or any other for that matter?)

[Trinidad]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-18, 16:53, said:

Every news story shown here has refugees that look more like emigres with their designer clothes, train tickets etc.

So, if you have designer clothes and money to buy train tickets you are supposed to stay in Syria and get killed, because if you have money you are clearly not a refugee?

And if you wear a T-shirt and jeans and can't afford to flee then ... well ... err ... then it is not a problem for the rest of the world that you get killed.

Rik