Quote (Knoppie @ 2 Sep 2018 23:36)
Hmm, distinguishing between "illegal" migrants and refugees, now that's a bit of a problem, would actually be made easier if we would allow them to fly them in by plane, from the countries you'd flee from, with a specific maximum each year ofc to be accepted. Entry by plane would make it easier to see where ppl come from to send them back when a refugee status is denied. The problem is that we've closed those paths of entry for refugees in 2001 (in an effort to fight illegal immigration). Meaning that the only way to get entry to Europe as a refugee is by boat, or over land. In order to reduce illegal immigration we've helped creating a market for human traffickers. We've raised the bar to get in and made determining who is a refugee a problem with it. To relate this to the last part of your post, the gumbel guy, (needed to look that up) was saying we can't let everybody immigrate, that is considered to be living in poverty, that's somewhat of a no-brainer, due to the numbers. I don't think Europe has "elitists" that are promoting immigration to fight poverty world wide. The only reason to do it imo, is to increase the size of economy locally. More ppl living in a country, is simply a larger market to make use of, to tax, fewer roads needed per driving car, more ppl sharing a sewage system, etc. You're upscaling the number of citizens using the same facilities. That, and ofc, creating a pyramid demographic graph with age on the y axis and age on the x axis. More fit ppl that can work, compared to those that cannot. The likelyness of the advantages outweighing the disadvantages for Europe in this time are rather questionable right now. For one part, the current refugees that go back only cost money. And for those that immigrate, it's rather difficult to get a job as a status holder, also for those that abused the system to get in. I also see the argument that we already have upscaled quite a bit, to a point of already being densely populated. We don't need one child policies, but should be hesitant in increasing our population. It's better to have free movement of ppl within Europe to fill in the gaps in sectors. I mean, we do need ppl in construction right now, if we can employ Greek ppl, I'm all for it. The downside of that system is that mainly lower income sectors that do not have a shortage of employees, will still have to compete with countries with lower minimum wages. So we need more tools to not widen the wealth gap within our countries or the EU, to balance it out.
Apart from all of that. I'm still for opening the border as a wealthy continent, to accept the same number of refugees as Lebanon does on its own.. But yeah, like the gumball guy said: We should put more effort in helping the ppl there, reducing the need to leave your home. Financing and improving living condition in refugee camps around Syria is also a good idea, something we've not done enough.
why is it a problem? the law is pretty clear on the asylum criteria, however for some reason politicians like merkel have decided to ignore them
there is no reason to actively import people via airplane, this would be yet another backdoor for poverty migration bypassing restrictions
coming directly by plane to our country is one of few possibilities to be able to apply for asylum in accordance with our law and it should stay that way
the numbers of migrants using the plane is increasing, over 11.000 directly to germany in 2017
i dont know where you get your information from, but there are no closed paths
we have a special procedure for asylum seekers in the transit zone of airports, switzerland and austria as well (dont know about other places, but i guess most countries in the western world do have something similar)
and people are using it, lots of illegals as well according to the federal police (i always wonder how they even made it that way lol), but obviously its better than uncontrolled migration by land
speaking of migration by land, another increasingly popular route is flying to some country in europe and travel to the desired destination from there
one example: since september 2017 iranians do not need visa anymore to come to serbia, which resulted in a massive increase of iranian asylum seekers
proof once again that this is not about actual asylum anymore, but active migration into the welfare state
serbia is planning to do the same thing for pakistan and nigeria as well, the bad news for us is that nigerias population is exploding and they already are one of the largest groups of sub sahara migrants
soon they will just need sufficient papers to board a plane, which is obviously significantly cheaper and land in belgrade
these papers will surely disappear on the way to germany and we will have the exact same problem that we already have
i wish people would stop comparing the situation of lebanon or jordan to europe, thats not a viable comparison at all
dont act as if these countries go through the same efforts we do, because they dont
the country of jordan providing some space in the desert for refugee camps with terrible living conditions that are financed by the UN is not the same as us spending billions for housing in expensive cities, full healthcare etc. etc.
that argument is used a lot to make us accept even more migrants, but its simply false
what you describe then sounds like a neoliberal dream, maximum number of consumers and possible debtors, minimum wages for maximum profit
zero fucks given about the consequences
i agree with focusing on closing the gap in the EU first, but since extracting as much money as possible from the net payers as the current approach isnt working so well, its more likely to go the other way around
at the current rate western europe will down to the level of romania or bulgaria or, more likely, break apart
This post was edited by ampoo on Sep 3 2018 01:32pm