Some immigration food for thought.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, Switzerland is NOT in the EU and I have never said that it is party to the Dublin Convention

... this would be the Dublin Convention that is no longer applicable in 24 out of 25 EU States in any case (and we're not the 25th) and that Switzerland was never a party to.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Once refugees are beyond the power of those persecuting them, they are logically no longer refugees and any further movement they undertake is that of migrants, economic or otherwise.

OK. I'll bite.

So by your logic they are migrants, whilst legally they are asylum seekers. Not only that, but they are legally asylum seekers in a nation where the legal definition of such things can be changed by the will of the people. So, while they may be logically migrants (at least by your logic), they are both legally and popularly asylum seekers.

I'm struggling to see how your logic works, Sand. The law, and the will of the people say otherwise...so exactly what is this logic based on, if not someone else's law, or someone else's wishes. You seem to be judging the Swiss by the standards that the Dublin Convention now applies to exactly one country, but which isn't a legal standard anywhere else that I can think of

Once you take that into account, and look at the countries surrounding Switizerland its hard to see how there could be genuine asylum seekers in Switzerland.

Not hard at all. If the Swiss people thought otherwise, these "incoming" would no longer be classed as asylum seekers. The people clearly don't think otherwise.

Unless, of course, you think the Swiss should accept somebody else's (some other nation's or nations') definition of what constitutes asylum seekers? Of course, saying that without also agreeing that Ireland should hand control of its own process over to the EU would be somewhat hypocritical.

Arguing that crossing some border makes you no longer an asylum seeker is an argument of convenience, not logic.

I reckon that if there was a direct connection between Ireland and some nation which was generating millions of refugees, many of the people backing this "only neighbours give asylum" proposal would turn around and argue that its all well and good in tehory, but its now causing us to get too many refugees, so we should adopt a more balanced approach which lets us offload them, or lets them go somewhere else. This is, of course, an unproveable assumption, but if you look at the "logic" underlying the "not seeking asylum, but is an immigrant", its basically "I want you to .be safe, but just not here. Let someone closer to your home look after you."

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
Arcades point about non-nationals in Switzerland being migrants rather than refugees is valid enough and cant be simply sneered away with references to aircraft.

The problem with Arcades point is that is assumes way too much. His argument is basically if they were genuine assylum seekers then they would stop in the first country they were safe in. The distrubing part is his conclusion that if they do not stop then they are not genuine assylum seekers. That is a very dangerous conclusion, and it reminds me of the argument "an innocent person wouldn't run from the police" or "an innocent person would have nothing to hide" that has been used in tyranny states for hundreds of years. One cannot assume guilt on a person simply based on their failure to follow certain conditions. A person who is raped, but fails to contact the police till months later, was still raped. A person in fear of their life, who applys for asylum in the 2nd EU contry they enter, is still a person in fear of their life.

Originally posted by Sand
Once refugees are beyond the power of those persecuting them, they are logically no longer refugees and any further movement they undertake is that of migrants, economic or otherwise.

They are asylum seekers until they have been granted asylum. The only question that is relievent is "does this person need asylum?" The question of why they did not apply for asylum in the last country they were in does not effect the this question.

Originally posted by Sand
Once you take that into account, and look at the countries surrounding Switizerland its hard to see how there could be genuine asylum seekers in Switzerland.

Again that is an assumption, that should not effect the weight of a persons asylum application. Using the example from the first paragraph, it is hard for me to see how a person who has been raped whould not go straight to the police. But it happens all the time. Does this mean they weren't raped? Of course not. In this day and age it would be a very silly/misinformed person that would stand up and say "I don't believe anyone who doesn't contact the police within a few hours, was raped." You apply a standard that a person must up hold, i.e. apply in the first port of call. If they fail to meet your standard you consider them lying. But it is possible they don't meet your standard, but are still telling the truth.

Originally posted by Sand
Its a darwinian proccess, those who make it to Europe are often some of the best qualified, educated, confident and relatively wealthy people - the rest either are too poor to flee or die in the attempt.

So if they are well educated, confident and wealthy why do they risk injury or death to travel to a country that won't let them work for a year and then, if they are lucky, only in McDonalds?

Sand

So, while they may be logically migrants (at least by your logic), they are both legally and popularly asylum seekers.

They are logically migrants, to my mind, for the reasons I have given. The Swiss lawmakers have little choice but to view them as asylum *seekers*, as they are indeed *seeking* asylum in Switzerland. Id view the claim of asylum by people who are logically not refugees as an abuse and exploitation of the definition of a refugee, who rightfully *demand* extraordinary rights and consideration from States above and beyond that of a migrant - which has real implications for actual refugees which I will come to later.

And refuting a criticism of a legal claim, with the reponse that its legal means an argument is A) not really a good refution given that I can list cases where historically the law has made and defended cases which were and are incorrect, unjust and indeed immoral - often with the popular support of the people, and Is fairly circular.

Unless, of course, you think the Swiss should accept somebody else's (some other nation's or nations') definition of what constitutes asylum seekers?

The Swiss lawmakers and their electorate have every right to be wrong, as their actions are not *directly* harming anyone unlike other legal wrongs that have been practisced such as slavery and apartheid which were both legal and popular at different times and still are today to some degree in many regions. I dont have to agree they are correct simply because they believe they are.

Arguing that crossing some border makes you no longer an asylum seeker is an argument of convenience, not logic.

Right, on to the implications of the generous exstension of refugee status to migrants.

Most nations retain some degree over control of their borders and the passage of people, capital and goods through them. If I want to go work in Switzerland ( and a friend of mine is leaving to do so shortly ) I would apply for a visa/permit/whatever and have to satisfy whatever requirement the Swiss law demands. Its up to the Swiss and their lawmakers as to what standards they set. This is widely if not totally accepted as being just and fair.

Refugees are the exception - they are fleeing horrific oppression or crimes against them that are so great that humanity and common decency demands that states provide succor for refugees regardless of other standards. Processing asylum claims is simply determining whether these people are actual refugees or are just migrants who must satisfy the standards set. Once youre accepted as a valid refugee then the State *must* ensure your safty from those oppressing you.

What were seeing now is the attempt by a large amount of people to abuse this principle, claiming to be refugees when they logically cannot be. Their motivation is simple and understandable - they want to live in a particular country, they see a loophole and hope to capitalise on ignorance and politicial correctness in exploiting it.

Were also seeing a lot of extremist quasi nationalist groups and parties making serious gains in Netherlands, France, Austria and other European nations which have seen a lot of these abuses. This is not unconnected. By encouraging, tolerating and assisting these abuses parties are encouraging an attitude that ALL non nationals are asylum seekers, that ALL asylum seekers are ripping off their hosts, that the hosts are TOO generous and asylum seekers, because theyre all really migrants and hoaxers, should be discouraged from claiming in the first place.

So Europeans vote for extremist parties that articulate and harness their discontent, and because theyre extremist single issues parties with little to say on other issues Europe gets increasingly bad government - hell, because of the discontent all non-nationals feel threatened and become ghettoised or even better yet retreat to their own extremists. Genuine refugees get shafted by countries redefining their duties towards asylum seekers. Everyones a loser.

All so people can ignore laws governing migration into a country. But, of course, these laws are only pretend laws.

if you look at the "logic" underlying the "not seeking asylum, but is an immigrant", its basically "I want you to .be safe, but just not here. Let someone closer to your home look after you."

Actually its more - Dont expect me to treat seriously a person resident in France as a refugee from the French. To do so only leads to bad outcomes for my own country and genuine refugees whose moral case ( and the rights of refugees are based on morality alone, they have no democratic mandate or power ) will be diluted by popular perceptions that theyre all hoaxers.

His argument is basically if they were genuine assylum seekers then they would stop in the first country they were safe in. The distrubing part is his conclusion that if they do not stop then they are not genuine assylum seekers.

Nothing, on the surface, wrong with that analysis beyond the fact id stress *no longer genuine* rather than simply *not genuine* which I think mis-represents Arcades, and certainly my own position. Once theyre safe from persecution they are no longer refugees by definition. Any further movement is on the basis of migration.

A person who is raped, but fails to contact the police till months later, was still raped. A person in fear of their life, who applys for asylum in the 2nd EU contry they enter, is still a person in fear of their life.

Slight misdirection there - A refugee is fleeing persecution, he is as you say in fear for his life - he has not lost his life. Once that fear is removed, by say reaching any EU country, then it is hard to claim that he is still in fear of his life and a refugee from the French and thus justified in claiming asylum in Luxembourg.

They are asylum seekers until they have been granted asylum. The only question that is relievent is "does this person need asylum?" The question of why they did not apply for asylum in the last country they were in does not effect the this question.

Sure it does - if someone arrives from France claiming asylum in Switzerland then the Swiss need only ask if not providing asylum would mean the French would persecute the individual. The French are, all things considered, fairly committed to human rights so its hard to argue the man would be in fear of his life from the French.

But it is possible they don't meet your standard, but are still telling the truth.

True, but there are so many things we dont know about *every* decision that if we were to try and bring them into an equation we would be unable to make any decision ever for fear of making the wrong one. We accept that we dont know everything and make decisions on the best infomation we have available to us.

So if they are well educated, confident and wealthy why do they risk injury or death to travel to a country that won't let them work for a year and then, if they are lucky, only in McDonalds?

Id assume its because they view the life of even a McDonalds worker as being of a higher quality than the life they see for themselves in their own countries. Which, when we move beyond No Logo rhetoric is probably true.

Its a double tragedy as I touched on before in replying to Bonkey. Whilst of course their own countries are losing a group of their best and brightest to the developed world, their talents and skills are wasted because a combination of our immigration laws and asylum processing encourages people to claim asylum as a loophole, precluding them from working or contributing their skills to the economy at all.

Theres a couple of ways that the issue can be dealt with - most of them are wrong. Refugees are not some form of "super-migrant". Encouraging migrants to claim asylum is not going to solve anything. If we need their skills ( and we do, EUs population is aging and wont sustain the social model for too long at this rate ) then lets solve the problem - our immigration laws. But lets not kid ourselves either that we arent taking the developing worlds best and brightest, hindering their own development, to improve our own.

Were not doing anyone any favours by forcing people to enter the EU illegally and extremely dangerously to claim asylum rather than processing them as migrants legally and safely.

Of course one problem is that unions are heavily opposed to immigrant workers undercutting their members.