Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Asylum works quite well for countries like us doesn't it? Little obligation (more applicable to Britain here but still...)
No it doesn't. Look at the vitnamese people for example. They came here for a better life. Without asylum. They got no help or money from the state. And they have their own shops and are well accepted here.
@Crommy: Those 40% of rejected people got in our country nevertheless. We have no border-patrol. Who should stop them? Also, still people without an ID card are let into our country. People who are known to support ISIS are let into our country. So who do you think gets rejected? I don't believe these numbers anyway.
Well, if you've decided to stop believing evidence just because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint, any more effort on my part is going to be wasted.
"evidence"
I just want to remember at the times, I posted evidence and everyone was like: "Nah, that can't be true. I bet it's a lie." I don't reject that "evidence" because it deosn't fit my point of view. I just think, before I believe statistics in the internet, especially if the y-axis is only in % and not in actual numbers. Or why do you think, that people with an ISIS background, criminal background or no ID card(to prove that they can even get asylum) are let into our country while they say that we almost reject half of the people? Where do they go? Back home? In another country maybe. So it could work that we reject some, but take others who were rejected in another country. Or do you really think that like 10 million people came to Europe. 5 Million got rejected and are on their way home? Even we, in our goddamn 15k inhabitant city, have around 2k asylum seekers. Our city can't handle it. Crimes have gone upwards. It's not safe to go outside anymore. If you want that, go get some more.
Let's talk facts. I once posted a link, of crimes in germany. It showed that there were loads of crimes from asylum seekers within germany. The fact is that lots of people don't want criminals in our country and that, if we take more, murders like Nice, Bruxelles and more will happen way more often(or why didn't any massacres happen in Poland and Hungary?). Also it will lead to countries heading more and more to the right wing. The main problem is that those problems in the middle east and in northern africa is mainly the fault of the western world. Why did we need to intervene with Assad, Gaddafi and more. It worked in their countries. Dictatorship isn't always bad. It's much better than what's happening now. That's the main reason we take those refugees. Because it's our fault(mainly the US, tho) that they become refugees in the first place. We should focus on making their countries better and not on bringing them here. And calling people like me, "Nazi" doesn't help with that. I have my opinion, you have yours. Both opinions are supported by facts, so no-one will change their mind anyways.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
In our german asylum laws it is stated, that you can only apply for asylum, when you're coming from an non-save country, but when you set foot in greece, you were in a save country before.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
In our german asylum laws it is stated, that you can only apply for asylum, when you're coming from an non-save country, but when you set foot in greece, you were in a save country before.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Let's dispel this myth that asylum seekers/refugees have to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. There is absolutely no international law which says this. If a person applies for asylum in a country, they are legally bound to consider and process that application.
What does exist in the EU is something called the Dublin Regulation, which can be optionally suspended by member states. It allows member states to return asylum/refugee applicants to the country where they first entered and were fingerprinted, and for them to be processed in that country.
In our german asylum laws it is stated, that you can only apply for asylum, when you're coming from an non-save country, but when you set foot in greece, you were in a save country before.
I just want to remember at the times, I posted evidence and everyone was like: "Nah, that can't be true. I bet it's a lie." I don't reject that "evidence" because it deosn't fit my point of view. I just think, before I believe statistics in the internet, especially if the y-axis is only in % and not in actual numbers. Or why do you think, that people with an ISIS background, criminal background or no ID card(to prove that they can even get asylum) are let into our country while they say that we almost reject half of the people? Where do they go? Back home? In another country maybe. So it could work that we reject some, but take others who were rejected in another country. Or do you really think that like 10 million people came to Europe. 5 Million got rejected and are on their way home? Even we, in our goddamn 15k inhabitant city, have around 2k asylum seekers. Our city can't handle it. Crimes have gone upwards. It's not safe to go outside anymore. If you want that, go get some more.
Let's talk facts. I once posted a link, of crimes in germany. It showed that there were loads of crimes from asylum seekers within germany. The fact is that lots of people don't want criminals in our country and that, if we take more, murders like Nice, Bruxelles and more will happen way more often(or why didn't any massacres happen in Poland and Hungary?). Also it will lead to countries heading more and more to the right wing. The main problem is that those problems in the middle east and in northern africa is mainly the fault of the western world. Why did we need to intervene with Assad, Gaddafi and more. It worked in their countries. Dictatorship isn't always bad. It's much better than what's happening now. That's the main reason we take those refugees. Because it's our fault(mainly the US, tho) that they become refugees in the first place. We should focus on making their countries better and not on bringing them here. And calling people like me, "Nazi" doesn't help with that. I have my opinion, you have yours. Both opinions are supported by facts, so no-one will change their mind anyways.
I completely understand all the concerns you've pointed out. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks all these refugees have come skipping along arm in arm across the border as they seek refuge. Too often debate is shut down by using the accusations you've said for legitimate concerns
Yep, crime rates have increased amongst these people. There's plenty of concerns about the volume of people, how we're going to support them, how long they'll be here etc.
But, I believe though given what they're fleeing, and that the vast majority are peaceful, that what we're currently doing (and I believe the UK needs to start pulling it's weight) is the best out of a whole bunch of not particularly great options. "Sorting out" there countries is obviously the end goal, but that's going to take awhile, and I think we should accept people who have legitimate refugee status.
However, I do believe linking the rise in terrorist attacks with the increase in immigration is demonstrably false.
However, currently EU law is considered primary, although that is still contended in certain areas in Germany (and various other states). So, yep, I was wrong there, you were right
ringo182 wrote:
That's because of the trouble in Ireland. Nothing to do with immigration.
And all the terrorist atrocities committed in the UK in the 2000s onwards have been committed by British born UK citizens (except the driver in the attempted Glasgow Airport attack, who was from India). So maybe, just maybe, the major issue isn't immigration, but radicalisation (specifically along the Wahabi and Salafi branches of Islam).
You seem to have completely missed the point of my previous comments.
I never said anything about imigrants commuting terrorist attacks in the UK. I said we have relatively few terrorist attacks considering the amount of immigration we have when compared to other countries like Germany and France.
Sorry, I did completely misread it.
Now I've re-read it, you seem to have next to no idea how the immigration/refugee process works. Germany (and the EU) does not have an open door policy. Applicants are still processed and have no right to refugee status if they cannot show they are eligible for it. So in Germany last year, over 40% of applicants were rejected.
No, the EU and Germany don't have an open door policy. But they are taking "Illegal Immigrants" who land in Greece and Italy to other European countries thereby encouraging more people to travel to Europe illegally. It is a completely ridiculous policy. It is rewarding criminals who traffic these people into Europe. It also means that the truly desperate/real refugees who can't afford to pay the hundreds of pounds to be shipped across the Med remain stuck in Syria or wherever it is they have come from.
Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
These people are being taken to Germany or elsewhere without any security checks taking pace thus putting the citizens of Europe at risk, as has been proven over the last few months. That is why I refer to it a an open door policy. Refugees need to be helped, but the current policy is not helping anyone. Surely the EU's policy should be to protect the citizens of Europe. They have failed to do that in the way they have handled the refugee crisis of the last 12 months or so.
Finally, you say that 40% of applications are refused. Do you have the stat for how many of that 40% are successfully returned to their place of origin? Or how many slip off the radar and become illegal immigrants living illegally in Europe?
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Paul23 wrote:
The thing is, I have no problem if they come here, for having a better life or for just getting more money, but that doesn't fall under our rules of asylum. Asylum is for people who would die, if they wouldn't come to us. But they're already save in Greece, so when we look at our laws, they shouldn't get asylum here, but be treated like normal immigrants.
Asylum works quite well for countries like us doesn't it? Little obligation (more applicable to Britain here but still...)
No it doesn't. Look at the vitnamese people for example. They came here for a better life. Without asylum. They got no help or money from the state. And they have their own shops and are well accepted here.
I'm really not sure what you mean - what I'm saying is that this law about going to the nearest safe country puts a lot of pressure on countries like Turkey and exempts countries like ours from having to do anything (maybe we'll have to pitch in if there's another potato famine in Ireland). Germany has done a good thing in helping but leaving it all to the nearest safe countries like Lebanon is putting undeveloped country under huge strain and leaving refugees in some pretty shitty conditions as a result.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Like I said, also loads of refugees come with cars or by plane. And yes, I'm scared by terrorism. Why shouldn't I? Lots of attacks, just within 2 months. Drop the speed limits won't help. Who cares about speed limits anyway? I don't know anybody who cares about them. Spend the money on hospitals....in germany, our technology in the hospitals is top notch. No problems here. We should spend the money, where it's most important. Education.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Like I said, also loads of refugees come with cars or by plane. And yes, I'm scared by terrorism. Why shouldn't I? Lots of attacks, just within 2 months. Drop the speed limits won't help. Who cares about speed limits anyway? I don't know anybody who cares about them. Spend the money on hospitals....in germany, our technology in the hospitals is top notch. No problems here. We should spend the money, where it's most important. Education.
It was aimed at ringo. I don't think you should be because very few people have died. Do what you want but I just find it all a bit bizarre. Dropping speed limits has helped before, we've seen it in the US, then speed limits are subsequently put back up and the deaths go with it. I don't know about Germany so I have no idea if what you say is true but I'm sure employing more nurses or doctors would probably save quite a few lives rather than spending a ton more on anti-terror to prevent the 10 or so deaths we've seen in Germany this year. Although the point was more general than just your country.
I actually have a theory that the lower speed limits are, the less likely they are to be followed, but I feel like that is not the real point of this discussion.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Like I said, also loads of refugees come with cars or by plane. And yes, I'm scared by terrorism. Why shouldn't I? Lots of attacks, just within 2 months. Drop the speed limits won't help. Who cares about speed limits anyway? I don't know anybody who cares about them. Spend the money on hospitals....in germany, our technology in the hospitals is top notch. No problems here. We should spend the money, where it's most important. Education.
It was aimed at ringo. I don't think you should be because very few people have died. Do what you want but I just find it all a bit bizarre. Dropping speed limits has helped before, we've seen it in the US, then speed limits are subsequently put back up and the deaths go with it. I don't know about Germany so I have no idea if what you say is true but I'm sure employing more nurses or doctors would probably save quite a few lives rather than spending a ton more on anti-terror to prevent the 10 or so deaths we've seen in Germany this year. Although the point was more general than just your country.
Well, people in the US are not used to going fast. Normally in germany, driving at 180kph won't hurt anybody. That's our avg traveling speed.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Like I said, also loads of refugees come with cars or by plane. And yes, I'm scared by terrorism. Why shouldn't I? Lots of attacks, just within 2 months. Drop the speed limits won't help. Who cares about speed limits anyway? I don't know anybody who cares about them. Spend the money on hospitals....in germany, our technology in the hospitals is top notch. No problems here. We should spend the money, where it's most important. Education.
It was aimed at ringo. I don't think you should be because very few people have died. Do what you want but I just find it all a bit bizarre. Dropping speed limits has helped before, we've seen it in the US, then speed limits are subsequently put back up and the deaths go with it. I don't know about Germany so I have no idea if what you say is true but I'm sure employing more nurses or doctors would probably save quite a few lives rather than spending a ton more on anti-terror to prevent the 10 or so deaths we've seen in Germany this year. Although the point was more general than just your country.
Well, people in the US are not used to going fast. Normally in germany, driving at 180kph won't hurt anybody. That's our avg traveling speed.
What actually happened in the US example is that speed limits were lowered, deaths went down, speed limits went back up, so did the deaths. In any case, the point I was gunning for was that there are some odd liberties we are willing to give up and money we are happy to spend in order to prevent deaths but not others.
ringo182 wrote: Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
I'm just going to have to give up here.
I honestly cannot fathom that you believe just because they have money they're not "real" or "genuine" refugees.
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
The sheer luxury of a rubber boat to cross the sea, wow. Refugee doesn't mean that the person has absolutely no money, it means they are trying to escape conflict (in this case). There is, without question, quite a big security issue in Syria.
One thing that does surprise me is, are people really that scared of terrorism? There have been so few attacks in Europe - if you spent the money allocated to anti-terror measures on hospitals or even if you were just willing to drop speed limits by 10mph then I'm sure you'd prevent many more deaths.
Yep, people really are that scared. In Australia, we have this complete nutjob named Pauline Hanson who founded her party 'One Nation' in the 90's and basically plays off the latest erm, 'trend' to win votes whilst being extremely racist. To get elected in the 90's she wanted to basically stop immigration and put forward the 'White Australia' policy (is as bad as it sounds).
Anyway, during the last federal election she managed to squirm her way into the senate because of her policy of no Muslim immigration (instead of stopping Asian immigration in the 90's when it was apparently a problem. Exact same policy, different group of people.). This made her party appeal to the lowest common denominator of society as well as those who fell for the Government's scare campaign against terrorism a year or two ago.
Here she is, filming a tv show about herself not long ago:
ringo182 wrote: Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
I'm just going to have to give up here.
I honestly cannot fathom that you believe just because they have money they're not "real" or "genuine" refugees.
I just as equally can't fathom your claim that every person coming to Europe is a genuine refugee.
I've at no point said all of the people coming are not genuine refugees. That quote you have used actually supports my argument. Even you can't claim all of the people coming are genuine refugees. The vast majority of the people coming are young males. At times of war the population hit hardest are young males.
But somehow these places affected by war appear to have a surplus of young males according to you, judging by the numbers of male "refugees".
Look, we all agree that genuine refugees need to be helped. My single point is that the majority of people coming into Europe illegally are not refugees. Yet the EU is taking these people and spreading them across Europe with no questions asked, thus spreading the security risk across the whole of Europe, encouraging people to travel illegally and pay thousands of pounds to people smugglers and most importantly is not helping the vast numbers of genuine refugees who can't afford to pay the money and so are trapped in a warzone. Is it EU policy to only to help the rich refugees? It is not the right way to deal with the issue.
ringo182 wrote: Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
I'm just going to have to give up here.
I honestly cannot fathom that you believe just because they have money they're not "real" or "genuine" refugees.
Do you have something to base your opinion on, or you are just guessing from thin air? Because lot of "refugees" are actually being sent back to where they come from, since it was discovered they dont have any legal claim to seek asylum in EU.
They come from North Africa and other areas whicg are not drowned in war confilcts and thus EU is labelling them "safe" countries so they can be returned. Unfortunately this system was not thought through earlier and many of these young males just seeking life in Europe are already here.
Btw. young males are those who should help build and secure their country the most, not just escape the life they dont like and migrate to another country.
ringo182 wrote: Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
I'm just going to have to give up here.
I honestly cannot fathom that you believe just because they have money they're not "real" or "genuine" refugees.
Do you have something to base your opinion on, or you are just guessing from thin air? Because lot of "refugees" are actually being sent back to where they come from, since it was discovered they dont have any legal claim to seek asylum in EU.
They come from North Africa and other areas whicg are not drowned in war confilcts and thus EU is labelling them "safe" countries so they can be returned. Unfortunately this system was not thought through earlier and many of these young males just seeking life in Europe are already here.
Btw. young males are those who should help build and secure their country the most, not just escape the life they dont like and migrate to another country.
Many young males are sent by their families to Europe because they are the ones who can work the hardest and have the best possibilities to make money, that's the reason why a majority of the refugees are young males.
Kirchen's second account according to Spilak23, 21-07-2016 17:16
ringo182 wrote: Help the real refugees, not the opportunists who can afford to pay the money to come to Europe illegally. Some are genuine refugees. But the majority of people paying to come over in rubber boats are not refugees.
I'm just going to have to give up here.
I honestly cannot fathom that you believe just because they have money they're not "real" or "genuine" refugees.
Do you have something to base your opinion on, or you are just guessing from thin air? Because lot of "refugees" are actually being sent back to where they come from, since it was discovered they dont have any legal claim to seek asylum in EU.
They come from North Africa and other areas whicg are not drowned in war confilcts and thus EU is labelling them "safe" countries so they can be returned. Unfortunately this system was not thought through earlier and many of these young males just seeking life in Europe are already here.
Btw. young males are those who should help build and secure their country the most, not just escape the life they dont like and migrate to another country.
Many young males are sent by their families to Europe because they are the ones who can work the hardest and have the best possibilities to make money, that's the reason why a majority of the refugees are young males.
That's the reason why migrants in countries not at war send all of their young males. Surely if you are living in a war zone the most important thing is to get the most venerable people out i.e children, grandparents, women. How does having a young male living in Europe help a family living in a warzone?
