Sassenach wrote:

And the Turks have no form for oppressing Kurds, or bombing Syrian and Iraqi Kurds?

In order to establish a legitimate asylum claim you need to do more than simply establish that some members of a particular group have suffered difficulties in a particular country in the past. Yes, the Turkish relations with their Kurdish minority have not been great, and continue not to be great, but we know that millions of Kurds manage to live quite safely in Turkey and hundreds of thousands of Syrian Kurds are living there right now without needing to fear for their lives. Absent any evidence to the contrary, which you have not provided, we have to assume that this family were in a safe country.

Why do we have to make that assumption

Well, his mother is dead too in the same incident, so she got what she deserves, right?

There was also a desire to reunite with family involved.

Grow up. Seriously Dan, it's not like you to bring such petty emotionalism into debates. I'll thank you to save the snark for the US politics threads that I know to avoid. My point, which I'm sure you understood full well, is that it's absurd to place the blame for the death of the child onto European politicians when it's quite obvious that the family chose to take an appalling risk.

Primarily the blame lies with the people smugglers and the guy piloting the ship who abandoned it. The family are victims here and I really don't like victim-blaming.

But a lot of people, the Turkish government (which seems to have been contributing to the war in Syria and failing to deal with refugees); the Arab governments (again involved in Syria and not taking in many refugees outside of those forced to by location - Jordan and Lebanon); Western governments (not just European ones, but all who are sitting here in our rich and priviliged part of the world and only doing much at all after public pressure rather than because there's a crisis in the first place)..

All have some culpability in the situation of families like that of Alan Kurdi.

Our PM seems to have - until this week - spent more effort on resting taking more people with genuine asylum claims, and trying to lobby to bomb Syria than he did on helping those fleeing the conflict.

And as for family reunion,I fail to see how getting to Kos was going to bring them very much closer to Canada.

My guess is that they could not get direct flights or passage out of Turkey through legal means, due to lack of documentation. Which is what was hindering the application in Canada. Entering Europe I guess would give an opportunity to get properly registered there and then re-apply.

What the Germans have done is not to simply deal with the problem they have but to greatly magnify the scale of that problem by setting up an enormous pull factor which will encourage millions more to take the trip. Not just Syrians either. By all accounts there's already a thriving black market in fake Syrian passports. There's simply no way for them to efficiently process the torrent of asylum claims they're going to be subjected to. It's a fantasy to suggest that only genuine refugees will be allowed to stay. Everybody will be allowed to stay because the only way they can possibly even come close to processing those claims is to pretty much abandon any pretence at conducting a proper asylum screening process and simply grant everybody. Once word gets about that this is what's happening, and it IS going to happen that way, then next year's migrant crisis will make this one seem like a mere inconvenience.

Perhaps the Germans are better at administration than we are here.

I am sure that they will not simply accept all without question. They may (probably will) end up accepting some people who are not 100% legitimate. But would rather do that than turn away people in genuine need.

there clearly already are significant push and pull factors.

I did not ask you to repeat the same assertion as if that adds anything, if I wanted that we could get DF in here. I asked you to tell me how they were safe. What evidence did you have that tells you that was the case?

See above. Absent evidence to the contrary, the logical conclusion is that they were safe. I'm afraid the ball is in your court here.

You could do more than blank assertion though. I have pointed out that Kurds, and Syrian Kurds, are not treated normally in Turkey.

No, not every one. Let us not debate a false dichotomy here. I think we can and should stake more, and improve the way we handle people. That is not the same as "all".

Ok, so how many ? How many should we take, and what would you do once that number is reached ? I can assure you that it will be reached a lot more quickly than you expect.

Last I saw we had taken about 8,000. There are calls to take 24,000, which would be more proportional to other EU nations on average. I would double that, and go to the refugee camps in Turkey to do it. So 50K a year

Which is less than our natural population growth.

We have a flow now even with restrictions, because the real problems are not here or on our borders, but in the countries they come from and those around them. There is a lot more we as the West can do to help, and not just use of military power.

Agreed, we can and should be doing a lot more at source, no objections there.

And that is the vital issue, because it's always ignored as being "over there" and not our problem. When the problem comes to our doorstep we realise how small the world is and getting smaller.

And frankly, the way we deal with refused immigrants like shoving them into places like Yarls Wood has been shameful too.

I'm not sure you really understand how Yarl's Wood works, or why it's there.

I know that again recently it has been found being used in ways it should not be, such as to routinely hold pregnant women for more than a very short period.

It would be nice if the bleeding hearts would just come clean and admit that they don't actually want to control immigration. It's frankly laughable to on the one hand make out that you're in favour of a fair system which will refuse economic migrants and on the other hand to denounce any and all methods we attempt to use to control them.

Thanks for the straw man.

I do think we should retain immigration controls. But the way we are trying to do it now, by restricting legal routes (our fantastic government pledge to use cuts in visas to reduce net immigration to 100,000 or less has backfired), and our reluctance to accept a share of the burden and responsibility for what we can all see is a major humanitarian crisis is not helping us.

Freeman:

RJ distinguishes people who are xenophobes and those who want laws enforced. I think I would characterize it more as conscious xenophobes (they don't want more immigrants coming in because they don't like the other) and unconscious xenophobes (they do really think they are concerned about enforcement of the laws but they are actually concerned about the other).

Well, I for one am very pro immigration (to my core) but I am against illegal immigration and believe we should have tighter border enforcement. Does that make me a xenophobe? Must we negatively stereotype people who disagree with us?

And for about the first time I am a bit disappointed in Sass because he is sounding a bit xenophobic.

Xenophobic how ? I'm afraid you don't get to just throw out those kind of allegations without backing it up. Go on, explain exactly how I'm a xenophobe.

You don't really understand the scale of the problem, or the political impossibility of asking European voters who are already in revolt at extraordinarily high rates of immigration to accept potentially millions of new people from an alien culture who will never go home. If it carries on like this it's going to destroy the asylum system and lead to widespread social unrest, and most likely the election of some real xenophobes.

Taking in some refugees is one thing, allowing anybody to cross the border illegally and never go back is quite another. This is what the Germans have effectively just done, and it won't end well. The problem needs to be tackled at source. By all means let's provide ample funding to improve conditions for the refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and certainly we need to be trying to find a solution to the Syrian civil war (whatever that might be), but we can't simply accept millions upon millions of people into Europe. This is the scale that we're talking about. Everybody in Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and a host of other countries would move to Europe if they could.

Why do we have to make that assumption

Because millions of Kurds are living safely in Turkey, those who are not are very much the exception rather than the rule. Besides which, the family have never claimed that their life was at risk in Turkey. I really don't understand why you persist with this line when it's obviously a red herring.

Perhaps the Germans are better at administration than we are here.

I am sure that they will not simply accept all without question. They may (probably will) end up accepting some people who are not 100% legitimate. But would rather do that than turn away people in genuine need.

They just quadrupled the workload of their immigration officials overnight. They're going to need to be pretty damn good at administration to deal with that.

Unlike you, I have professional experience with what's required to make immigration and asylum decisions. The Germans are dealing with the same laws and conventions that we do and I can assure you there's no way they're going to be able to cope if they follow normal procedures, or not unless they want to end up with enormous backlogs that stretch out the length of the application process for years. This is going to be a rubber stamp exercise.

Last I saw we had taken about 8,000. There are calls to take 24,000, which would be more proportional to other EU nations on average. I would double that, and go to the refugee camps in Turkey to do it. So 50K a year

Which is less than our natural population growth.

I'm not just, or even primarily, talking about Britain here. Britain is largely peripheral to the crisis. Neither am I talking about taking some of the most vulnerable directly from the camps. That would be less objectionable and in fact is a much more sensible approach, although it really wouldn't solve anything. What this is about is the decision by the Germans to open the door to millions of the least vulnerable to cross our borders illegally without going through proper channels. They expect to process 800000 applications this year. You can probably double that next year. These are epic numbers with no discernible end in sight. So what happens if every EU country agrees to take 50000 refugees (which they won't) and then another 2 million people show up next year ? What happens when the next war breaks out ? There are wars right now in Yemen, DR Congo, Somalia, Nigeria, CAR... There isn't really a definable limit to the number of desperate people who are likely to want to come. What there certainly is though is a limit to the numbers we can realistically absorb without causing widespread social tension.

I know that again recently it has been found being used in ways it should not be, such as to routinely hold pregnant women for more than a very short period.

So you started out saying it was disgusting that Yarl's Wood exists at all and now you're just saying that we should maybe be a bit more lenient with pregnant women. Or maybe that's not what you're saying ? My point was that detention centres are necessary, and I've explained why. If you don't agree then perhaps you could explain how else you propose to remove people who don't want to go.

RJ, how do you explain immigration being an issue when it is not going up? I don't think really there is a legitimate reason to be that concerned about immigration right now based on recent immigration figures. You can be against illegal immigration and for tighter border enforcement and not be xenophobic , but I don't see how immigration can be a major issue for a person free of anti-immigrant bias when net immigration is flat. If it is a major issue for you--and I am fairly certain that you are not biased--then perhaps you could explain it to me. I honestly don't get it.

Sass, you provide no solution for the immigration crisis, are clearly worried about hordes of immigrants coming in to Europe if you start granting asylum to current refugees, say Turkey is a safe place for Kurds (uh maybe not....http://time.com/3974399/turkey-kurds-isis/), lambaste Germany for sacrificing to take in many of these refugees, seem to far more concerned that some non-deserving asylum seekers will get in than about the plight of deserving ones, don't specify the harm to your country from taking in additional refugees and the tone of your posts is a bit intense...Obviously, I can't read your mind and all I said is that you were sounding a bit xenophobic. I'm not saying you are but that's how the posts are sounding to me. Mind you, we are probably all xenophobes to one degree or another (it is certainly easier to deal with people that look like us, speak the same language , have the same culture, etc.) but we do like to pretend nowadays that we are completely free of any prejudice against any other groups whatsoever.

For all that this was a Dag thread and as such attracted no replies....

A review of past threads will show you I've kickstarted more than one conversation that has stretched into dozens of pages and numerous views. But how predictably magnanimous of you Sessenach to respond to one of my threads.

this is a very significant crisis that's brewing and we probably ought to be talking about it instead of spending 7 million pages discussing the latest developments in the Hillary's hotmail scandal.

I visit the political pages every now and then to learn from this group and was amazed to find this topic hadn't been dealt with. Thank God Sassenach decided this was a significant crisis.

I did legitimately appreciate the education on the nuts and bolts of Dublin II. For that I thank you. That's why I come here, to learn, not throw grenades or wind people up but thanks for the accusations.

Long before the image of the drowned child I've been following this story. I am amazed at the fact that until now, Turkey seems to have been the only real player in dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis to date.

Curious Danivon, are there any wealthy Arab nations that have lifted so much as a finger to assist with this crisis? Maybe there are. I really don't know. You will know better than me. But the impression I get is that not one country whose population is largely Islamic gives a flying #@ck about the Syrian refugees outside of Turkey, who lets face it, are involved primarily due to proxy. Why is that Danivon? Ricky?

Isn't this a problem for the entire world? Not simply the West? Where is the Islamic leadership? Surely there is some level of economic infrastructure within some of the Arab nations that would allow some modicum of absorption of refugees? It strikes me as odd that the narrative at the moment is centered on the West as somehow irresponsible unless it solves the problem. I suppose it's because of the West's involvement (or lack thereof) in the Syrian war?

Angela Merkel has forever changed the face of Europe in her stroke of "compassion" which begs the question posed by Geo:

Are there examples of modern societies that have been harmed long-term by accepting and settling large numbers of immigrants?

Geo, what do you mean by long-term?

Maybe not. Maybe there is a silver lining in all of this for Europe. It's more than likely that those willing to flee their current situation are the very types motivated to make better lives for themselves and therefore will assimilate and get on with it no matter where they end up inside Europe.

But with that group there will be high level security risks that emerge as a result of terrorists who take advantage of the confusion and chaos. And why is that exactly? Well, I'd better not get into that for fear of being accused of xenophobia.

Speaking of which..

Freeman wrote:

And for about the first time I am a bit disappointed in Sass because he is sounding a bit xenophobic.

the reply...

Xenophobic how ? I'm afraid you don't get to just throw out those kind of allegations without backing it up. Go on, explain exactly how I'm a xenophobe.

What's the matter Sessanach? You sound a little aggravated for having been called out unfairly? And without evidence of the contrary brought to bear against you? How rich.

The truth is that Europeans are reluctant to deal with this crisis because the majority of Syrians fleeing the war are Muslim. They do not want to accept more Muslims into their countries. It's not about the overwhelming numbers. It's about a clash of cultures. And why? Because the perception is that with Muslims comes intolerance, religious fundamentalism, security risks and an absolute vacuum of leadership to counter it.

You may not agree with those perceptions but lets call a spade a spade here, if the majority of refugees were Jewish or Christian or even Hindu, the resulting crisis would overwhelming but it would be primarily about numbers and infrastructure, not religion. The latter makes this situation all the more complex.

There's an element of truth to what you say Dag, but it's only a part of the story. For starters, it's not true that all of the migrants are muslims. There's an awful lot of Africans from christian countries making the crossing from Libya and the reaction to them is largely the same (in fact they get even less sympathy from the European public than the Syrians do). In Britain there's also a significant concern about migration from eastern Europe (lawful migration this time, due to EU freedom of movement). Fact is that immigration is a hot topic right now and has been for a number of years. Had we not seen such an unprecedented level of immigration for the last 20 years, culminating in widespread public anger, then the reaction to the Syrian crisis would almost certainly have been very different.

Sass, you provide no solution for the immigration crisis, are clearly worried about hordes of immigrants coming in to Europe if you start granting asylum to current refugees, say Turkey is a safe place for Kurds (uh maybe not....http://time.com/3974399/turkey-kurds-isis/), lambaste Germany for sacrificing to take in many of these refugees, seem to far more concerned that some non-deserving asylum seekers will get in than about the plight of deserving ones, don't specify the harm to your country from taking in additional refugees and the tone of your posts is a bit intense...Obviously, I can't read your mind and all I said is that you were sounding a bit xenophobic

.

I work in the field of immigration and I have a great deal of experience in what goes on. As such, I think I have a clearer understanding of what's going to happen as a result of the German decision, and I don't think it's going to be pretty. Immigration controls are going to pretty much collapse in Germany, and this will then spread throughout Europe and feed a visceral backlash. There are a number of distinctly unpleasant, properly xenophobic parties in various European countries which have been growing in popularity on the back of public anger at immigration levels. When the asylum system is allowed to fall into public disrepute, which is what's going top happen if Germany continues on the current path, it's highly likely to boost the popularity of these parties and we could well end up in a pretty ugly situation. I don't want to see that happen.

Like I said, you don't understand either the scale of the problem, the levels of public discontent at current immigration policies across Europe or the institutional difficulties that exist in trying to control illegal immigration. If you did understand these things you'd be far less hasty to judge me.

If I'm 'intense' it's because I'm tired of having to be the voice of reason in the face of emotional blackmail.

Do me a personal favor in the future Sessanach. Put your powdered wig and gavel away the next time someone on Redscape reveals an emotion about some human tragedy. I often don't see eye to eye with Danivon, but for once the guy made a personal connection between his own life and that of another man suffering great loss. Let's not subjugate emotions on this site to the intellectual especially when they are clearly from the heart and in a spirit of empathy. None of these important issues that get talked about here are detached from who we are as human beings.

Thanks for the reasoned response , Sass. And I don't have a lot of knowledge about the politics, history, and mechanics of immigration in Europe--certainly not compared to your knowledge since you work in the field (my firm does some immigration deportation hearings so I have knowledge about that aspect of things). I'll take back the (a bit)xenophobic claim, but I still hope that you look at these people with a little more compassion. Even if allowing these refugees to immigrate causes the growth of right-wing parties, we can't let that stop us from doing the right thing. Of course, European countries cannot absorb unlimited numbers of immigrants either. I get that. And there may be legitimate concerns about Muslim populations not being integrated into the larger society (or that may be exaggerated, I really don't know ). But there is a specific humanitarian crisis related to Syria and that needs to be solved . Steps taken down to deal with that problem don't necessarily mean that the floodgates are open to immigration from anywhere to Europe. Solve one problem at a time and worry what to do when the next problem comes along. And the problem cannot be solved by just putting it all on Turkey to deal with.

freeman3 wrote: I think I would characterize it more as conscious xenophobes (they don't want more immigrants coming in because they don't like the other) and unconscious xenophobes (they do really think they are concerned about enforcement of the laws but they are actually concerned about the other).

And that right there is the problems with politics in his country. Each side automatically assumes the worst on the other side. What makes it worse is that these people are the biggest @#$! hypocrites in the world because they claim to be the open minded ones when in reality they are so closed minded it is pathetic.

Seriously, I used to be a moderate Republican. I have voted for Democratic candidates in the past because I thought they were the better candidate. However, because of this type of attitude and the ignorance and condescension is inspires, I have become radicalized. My attitude has evolved into even a bad Republican is better than any Democrat.

Quite honestly, I found Freeman's comment rather offensive.

freeman3 wrote:RJ, how do you explain immigration being an issue when it is not going up? I don't think really there is a legitimate reason to be that concerned about immigration right now based on recent immigration figures. You can be against illegal immigration and for tighter border enforcement and not be xenophobic , but I don't see how immigration can be a major issue for a person free of anti-immigrant bias when net immigration is flat. If it is a major issue for you--and I am fairly certain that you are not biased--then perhaps you could explain it to me. I honestly don't get it.

Per this website, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM. ... t&sort=asc

the US had positive immigration of 5 million in 2012. I'm not sure about your flat assertion. I've always wondered about the data when it concerns illegal immigration. How does anyone know?

In any case, I think immigration is great. However, illegal immigration is problematic. It means that people who try to do the right thing and come to this country legally are delayed and punished for their honesty. It means that there are undocumented people who have to operate in our society out of the mainstream and cannot conform to various laws and regulations, whether it is employment or driving.

Are you in favor of illegal immigration?

Europe has a population of about 450 million. The number of illegal immigrants detected coming into the EU is about 3-400,000 per annum at present.

Which means in a few years they may be 1% of our current population. That is the scale we are talking about.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote: I think I would characterize it more as conscious xenophobes (they don't want more immigrants coming in because they don't like the other) and unconscious xenophobes (they do really think they are concerned about enforcement of the laws but they are actually concerned about the other).

And that right there is the problems with politics in his country. Each side automatically assumes the worst on the other side. What makes it worse is that these people are the biggest @#$! hypocrites in the world because they claim to be the open minded ones when in reality they are so closed minded it is pathetic.

Seriously, I used to be a moderate Republican. I have voted for Democratic candidates in the past because I thought they were the better candidate. However, because of this type of attitude and the ignorance and condescension is inspires, I have become radicalized. My attitude has evolved into even a bad Republican is better than any Democrat.

Quite honestly, I found Freeman's comment rather offensive.

I like Freeman quite a bit, but I fully agree (except for the last 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph), It's this notion that if you don't agree with me you must be a xenophobe, a racist, a sexist pig, anti-science, etc..

danivon

Which is what was hindering the application in Canada.

Actually, he had no application for refugee status to Canada. His sister had filed to sponsor his brother...and had that application turned down because she'd filled out the form wrong. She really didn't have the resources to sponsor more than one. She's a hairdresser and had little help from any charitable group. And certainly none from the government.
According to this sister, he risked the boat, because he was trying to get his family to somewhere else than Turkey because conditions in the refugee centre were miserable, and he was running out of money. Desperation makes people take risks.

The US has taken 1,500 refugees from Syria. It will be interesting to hear what Presidential candidates have to say about taking refugees in light of the centre piece that immigration has become in the republican campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_ ... _Civil_War
In Canada the refugee crisis is now a campaign issue and the most generous candidate (Trudeau the Liberal) has gained as a result of his position on the crisis in the last few days ... (He wants to take in 25,00 refugees without much of a bureaucratic process.
How does the move to deport 11 million look now in light of a refugee crisis? Surely the lens shaping the issue will change now.

There is a problem with an aging population and decreasing population in many European countries. And Japan.
Refugees fleeing the barrel bombs in Syria may not be the most attractive immigrants to many. But one picture on almost every newspaper, web site and newscast seems to have made these people very sympathetic.
I hope that an accommodation can be found for many of these people in Europe and elsewhere. How that happens will be important because,
in a couple of decades its likely that climate change is going to create an even larger refugee crisis as economic refugees abandon areas of the world made uninhabitable by increasing temperatures and rising water...

The reality is that there are several reasons for migration, and fleeing war and oppression is but one.

And there are legal and illegal means of migrating. But even refugees end up using illegal means. And as much as that may be naughty of them, it may be their only option (at least as they see it).

I wonder how many people fleeing pogroms and fascism in Europe to get to America were not fully legal when they entered?

Europe has a population of about 450 million. The number of illegal immigrants detected coming into the EU is about 3-400,000 per annum at present.

The Germans are expecting to process twice that number this year. They won't, for reasons I've already set out in this thread, but it should give you sufficient reason to doubt the stat you just quoted.