Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Frank Grimes

kettlehead wrote: »

That we should keep our borders open as the Islamic terrorists will get in anyway? That's not a point. That is nonsense. If there are a spate of burglaries in my area I don't leave the door unlocked because they will get in anyway.

Securing a state's borders is not analogous to securing a house. To completely lock down a state's borders would be virtually impossible; Israel's wall is possibly one example to point to but what can somewhere like Ireland do to fully secure its borders? 'Our' borders are not "open" either, despite what you may believe.

Frank Grimes

kettlehead wrote: »

As for them being Belgian or French citizens - some indeed where. Of recent immigrant stock. Which further shows the utter failure of Europe's immigration policies over the last few decades.

How?

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

That we should keep our borders open as the Islamic terrorists will get in anyway? That's not a point. That is nonsense. If there are a spate of burglaries in my area I don't leave the door unlocked because they will get in anyway.

We know that terrorists have and are using the migrant route - something which the "Refugees welcome" people claimed wouldn't happen and was just "far right fearmongering". Continuing to leave the borders open in such a scenario is absolute lunacy. Too high a price has already been paid. How many more must be murdered before people realise that large scale, unvetted and unfettered immigration from the Middle East and Africa is a
suicidal policy?

The fact is that "we" do not have open borders, and that the people who entered were not in fact refugees but almost entirely European citizens.

We don't have "unfettered immigration", we have a large influx of refugees from - primarily - the middle east.

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Non EU migrants are a net drain whilst EU migrants contribute more than they receive.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

This has been brought up numerous times in this thread. The report's own authors have rejected what the Telegraph argued. You were posting in the thread on the same pages where this was discussed: surely you read this?

Dustman and Frattini say it is misleading to use the £118bn figure as the Telegraph and Mail have done. As they point out, this is based on the cost of all immigrants living in Britain between 1995 and 2011. This isn’t migrants who arrived in Britain in the late 1990s and 2000s but all the non-UK born people living in Britain at that time. More than 90% of them will have arrived in Britain long before 1995, including Britain’s large long-settled Asian and Caribbean communities who were born abroad.
The authors say this doesn’t tell us anything about how much these people have cost Britain in net terms because it ignores their contribution during the first 45 years of their residence.The authors say they have only reported these figures “for completeness” and such figures are “difficult to interpret” which is why they believe the discussion should focus on the positive contribution made by migrants who have arrived in Britain since 2000. It also tells us far more about what our attitude should be towards migrants now coming to Britain.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

The link below slows that Non EU have significently higher unemployment rates.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-employment-unemployment-1596939-Jul2014/

This is unsurprising: given the much greater difficulties non-EU nationals face in registering for work within the EU, it makes sense that they have lower levels of employment participation. However, this level rises rapidly: after 12 months, non-EU nationals have an even lower level of unemployment than EU member state nationals

rgossip30 wrote: »

The link below refers to the UK and the difference between EU and Non EU and their benefit . The non EU is of lower benefit.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication13389_en.pdf

Had a scan through it and can't see where it proves this. Can you highlight this for me?

rgossip30 wrote: »

A more hard hitting article that predicts chaos.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/612673/migrant-crisis-Syria-taxes-economy-Germany-Angela-Merkel-Bernd-Raffelhuschen

Not exactly hard hitting. The Daily Express is a tabloid so it's more interested in sensationalism than nuanced reporting. Considering the various groups which reject a negative result from the refugee crisis (many of which you've helpfully linked to in your Bruegel article above), one economist isn't much of an authoritative source. Especially in such a vague tabloid article.

kettlehead

Lockstep wrote: »

This is unsurprising: given the much greater difficulties non-EU nationals face in registering for work within the EU, it makes sense that they have lower levels of employment participation. However, this level rises rapidly: after 12 months, non-EU nationals have an even lower level of unemployment than EU member state nationals

Nowhere in that Pdf does it say what you claim.

Non EU citizens unemployment rate is twice that of EU citizens.

Non-EU citizens aged 20-64 were in 2013 twice as likely (21.3%) to be unemployed in one of the EU's 28 member states compared to "nationals" (10.0%), new data from the EU's statistics office Eurostat shows.

The data also revealed that the employment rate was 56.1% for non-EU citizens, compared with 68.9% for citizens of the reporting country.

But large differences can be found within member states.

In Sweden, which has the biggest gap, the employment rate for non-EU citizens was 50.2% compared with 81.3% for nationals (-31.1 percentage points), followed by Belgium (-28.8), the Netherlands (-26.8), France (-22.0), Finland (-20.5) and Germany (-20.2).

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

Nowhere in that Pdf does it say what you claim.

Non EU citizens unemployment rate is twice that of EU citizens.



http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

It's literally in the very first paragraph of the PDF...

In 2013 in the EU28, the unemployment rate for non-EU citizens1 (21.3%) aged 20 to 642 was more than twice the level for citizens of the reporting country (10.0%), referred to as “nationals1”. However, the share of people unemployed for 12 months or more was at almost the same level for non-EU citizens (48.6%) and for nationals (49.4%).

Considering non-EU national's unemployment rate goes from being nominally over double that of nationals to even less than that of member state nationals, this is very significant.

Considering that their nominal unemployment rate is double that of nationals, the fact that this falls dramatically within 12 months to even less than that of member state nationals is fairly significant.

kettlehead

48.6% of 21.3%(non EU unemployment rate) is higher than 49.4% of 10%(EU unemployment rate). This is first year maths. Pretty basic stuff.

So this;

However, this level rises rapidly: after 12 months, non-EU nationals have an even lower level of unemployment than EU member state nationals

Is false.

Considering that their nominal unemployment rate is double that of nationals, the fact that this falls dramatically within 12 months to even less than that of member state nationals is fairly significant.

Even after 12 months, it's still double the rate. After 12 months, it's still higher than EU citizens total unemployment rate.

Lockstep

kettlehead wrote: »

48.6% of 21.3%(non EU unemployment rate) is higher than 49.4% of 10%(EU unemployment rate). This is first year maths. Pretty basic stuff.

So this;



Is false.



Even after 12 months, it's still double the rate.

No it's not. Please read the PDF.

However, the share of people unemployed for 12 months or more was at almost the same level for non-EU citizens (48.6%) and for nationals (49.4%).

You might think it's first year maths but if you're not reading the report properly, even advanced maths won't help you.

The share long term unemployment rate (more than 12 months) among MS nationals is 49.4%. It's 48.6% for non-EU nationals. Check out the table at the bottom of the PDF's first page. It's clearly stated there. Therefore, proportionally, more nationals are long-term unemployed than non-EU nationals.
Even though non-EU nationals have a nominally higher unemployment rate of more than double than nationals, this drops exponentially so that their long-term unemployment rate is even lower than nationals.

If you've any data to refute this, please provide it but attempting to blatantly misrepresent Eurostat's data does nothing for your argument.

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

48.6% of 21.3%(..............)unemployment rate.

If you'd be good enough to get back to us on post 1023
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98201722&postcount=1023
its a question I was going to ask myself.

K-9

kettlehead wrote: »

That we should keep our borders open as the Islamic terrorists will get in anyway? That's not a point. That is nonsense. If there are a spate of burglaries in my area I don't leave the door unlocked because they will get in anyway.

We know that terrorists have and are using the migrant route - something which the "Refugees welcome" people claimed wouldn't happen and was just "far right fearmongering". Continuing to leave the borders open in such a scenario is absolute lunacy. Too high a price has already been paid. How many more must be murdered before people realise that large scale, unvetted and unfettered immigration from the Middle East and Africa is a suicidal policy?

Terrorists will use whatever methods are possible. 70's Europe a good example with multiple groups operating in Europe.

Unless you completely close borders, i.e. stop tourism, they'll still find ways in.

Alexis Sanchez

K-9 wrote: »

Terrorists will use whatever methods are possible. 70's Europe a good example with multiple groups operating in Europe.

Unless you completely close borders, i.e. stop tourism, they'll still find ways in.

Yet Islamic terrorism is much more common in Europe than it is in America, despite the fact that America is public enemy No. 1 in the Islamic world.

Do you want to know why that is? The Atlantic Ocean and immigration control. Muslims can't just waltz into America like they do in Europe, you need to apply for a visa and you must meet certain requirements to get one - it helps filter out the thugs.

Building a fence and mimicking Australia's "turning and towing" solution is a far superior solution than "Ah, well, they'll just blow us up anyway. Let's just play down Islamic terrorism and sweep the other social problems under the rug so we appear as nice, warm people."

I honestly think it's madness you believe "they'll come in anyway" is a valid response to this problem. It's like going to the Sahara Desert during June with factor 6 sunscreen and saying: Nah, there's no point putting it on, I'll get sunburned anyway" without realizing that every drop will help limit your sunburn and the possibility of developing skin cancer.

Strict immigration control isn't fool-proof, but it's better than current solution and it's incredibly naive to say otherwise.

K-9

9/11 still happened, the gun attack last week, Bali, stuff like that.

I do see your point, but as for naivety about terrorism, I suppose I grew up with terrorist threats so I know terrorists will do what terrorists do.

Closing borders will just become a recruiting tool and an extra incentive for them.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

This is unsurprising: given the much greater difficulties non-EU nationals face in registering for work within the EU, it makes sense that they have lower levels of employment participation. However, this level rises rapidly: after 12 months, non-EU nationals have an even lower level of unemployment than EU member state nationals

Had a scan through it and can't see where it proves this. Can you highlight this for me?



Not exactly hard hitting. The Daily Express is a tabloid so it's more interested in sensationalism than nuanced reporting. Considering the various groups which reject a negative result from the refugee crisis (many of which you've helpfully linked to in your Bruegel article above), one economist isn't much of an authoritative source. Especially in such a vague tabloid article.

The question why should Ireland for example take in non EU migrants when there is already an abundant EU worforce ? Really your posts are repetative , boring and just refute any credible links .
The pattern of migration has changed radically as those who now come are escaping a war not specificaly looking for work. To integrate and train these migrants in language and skills is a long process.
The page that you scanned through had a graph which explained this it no longer exists.Do you see what you want to see.

More links on higher Non EU unemployment. I take it these are also sensationalist and incorrect in your opinion.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-employment-unemployment-1596939-Jul2014/

German poll shows discontent with migrant influx

http://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-notes-rise-in-fears-over-refugee-influx/a-18757023

http://www.dw.com/en/germans-pessimistic-about-economic-upside-of-refugee-influx/a-18943058

Frankly I have better things to do . I wish it would stop raining .

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

The question why should Ireland for example take in non EU migrants when there is already an abundant EU worforce ?

Because there's large numbers of refugees arriving in the EU requiring burden sharing across the board. Some countries will obviously take more due to having larger economies, more population and worker shortages (Germany), this doesn't mean they can unilaterally take in hundreds of thousands of workers and not expect others to contribute at all. We're part of the EU, that means we have responsibilities as well as rights.

rgossip30 wrote: »

Really your posts are repetative , boring and just refute any credible links .

It's unsurprising that my posts are repetitive. The exact same canards keep being brought up in this debate ("They're migrants, not refugees", "The vast majority aren't Syrian" "Refugees will negatively impact our economies" etc etc etc) so I have to keep bringing up the same points to refute them. When new points get made, I'm more than happy to address them.

Which of my sources do you have a problem with? The UNHCR? Brookings? The CREAM Report? Frontex? The European Commission? Take your pick.

rgossip30 wrote: »

The pattern of migration has changed radically as those who now come are escaping a war not specificaly looking for work. To integrate and train these migrants in language and skills is a long process.

Right, and once they're trained, the money invested into them is offset by their productivity. Refugees will have a negligible impact (small but positive) on the EU's economy: the Commission report clearly shows this, even if all the refugees were low-skilled. This won't be the case as half the arrivals come from Syria: a formerly middle-income country where 93% of kids attended school and 25% of eligible people attended university

If you were able to save someone's life without it costing you anything, would not agree to do so? What if it cost you a small amount of money?

rgossip30 wrote: »

The page that you scanned through had a graph which explained this it no longer exists.Do you see what you want to see.

No, when a report is over 30 pages long, I was expecting there to be places
. Given your Bruegel link didn't support your claims at all (quite the opposite), I was interested in you highlighting where the relevant points were.

Are you saying the relevant graph doesn't exist anymore? Unfortunately, you can't expect others to take claims seriously when the part which supports your argument mysteriously disappears.

rgossip30 wrote: »

More links on higher Non EU unemployment. I take it these are also sensationalist and incorrect in your opinion.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-employment-unemployment-1596939-Jul2014/

Well, yes. They're both based on the exact same Eurostat report so they're not provide any new data: merely echoing on what we were already discussing, particularly since we you already linked to that Journal article already.
I never claimed Eurostat's report was "sensationlist or incorrect": I was referring to the Daily Express article, which as a tabloid is hardly a bastion of nuance or restraint.

rgossip30 wrote: »

German poll shows discontent with migrant influx

http://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-notes-rise-in-fears-over-refugee-influx/a-18757023

http://www.dw.com/en/germans-pessimistic-about-economic-upside-of-refugee-influx/a-18943058

Frankly I have better things to do . I wish it would stop raining .

I never disputed public opposition to refugees will be a factor. It's just a shame that there's much ignorance about refugees and immigration in general.

Nodin

rgossip30 wrote: »

The question why should Ireland for example take in non EU migrants when there is already an abundant EU worforce ? Really your posts are repetative , boring and just refute any credible links .
The pattern of migration has changed radically as those who now come are escaping a war not specificaly looking for work. To integrate and train these migrants in language and skills is a long process.
The page that you scanned through had a graph which explained this it no longer exists.Do you see what you want to see.
................ .

The people we are taking in via the med are refugees. We discussed this before.

KingBrian2

Lockstep wrote: »

I never disputed public opposition to refugees will be a factor. It's just a shame that there's much ignorance about refugees and immigration in general.

Happy Christmas Lockstep.:) Hope you had a good few couple of days.

Anyway back to the topic at hand you keep saying the public is ignorant of refugee and immigration numbers. If you look at the elections in Britain, France & the Germany incredible time and effort has been put into stating the refugee case. The far right is actually polling 3rd place or below in France behind the Conservatives and the Socialists. Pegida has very little support in Germany neither does Ukip the Tories have wiped out the liberals and the SNP have wiped out Labour. The UN, Red Cross, and the British observatory taking note of the Syrian crisis publish tonnes of data that the public are free to read so public ignorance is not a factor perhaps you may refer to the treatment of immigrants when they get to Europe as opposed to the actual numbers that are well documented and for all to see.

kettlehead

German states to spend around 17 billion euros on refugees in 2016

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's federal states are planning to spend around 17 billion euros (13 billion pounds) on dealing with the refugee crisis in 2016, newspaper Die Welt said on Tuesday, citing a survey it conducted among their finance ministries.

The sum, bigger than the 15.3 billion euros that the central government planned to allocate to its education and research ministry in 2015, is a measure of the strain that the influx is causing across the country as a whole.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-germany-costs-idUKKBN0UC02820151229

That is a huge chunk of change. German states are the Bundesländer, so it's excluding the federal government spending. Are people still going to claim that all of this will be a financial benefit to Germany? I don't think that anyone can claim that with a straight face.

Nodin

kettlehead wrote: »

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-migrants-germany-costs-idUKKBN0UC02820151229

That is a huge chunk of change. German states are the Bundesländer, so it's excluding the federal government spending. Are people still going to claim that all of this will be a financial benefit to Germany? I don't think that anyone can claim that with a straight face.

Earlier you stated

"As for them being Belgian or French citizens - some indeed where. Of recent immigrant stock. Which further shows the utter failure of Europe's immigration policies over the last few decades."

You might be as good as to explain how this is the case.

oscarBravo

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Strict immigration control isn't fool-proof, but it's better than current solution...

It may be "better" if you confine your analysis to the stupidly simplistic metric of "will it prevent some people using the immigration process to arrive in Europe and kill me in a terrorist attack?"

You can completely eliminate your risk of being killed in a car crash by never leaving your house. That would be a stupidly simplistic thing to do, however, because the odds of you getting killed in a car crash anyway are extremely low, and there are negative consequences to never leaving your house.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who get in cars every day of their lives cower in terror at the prospect of Islamic extremists. Neither is particularly likely to kill you, and if fear motivates you to the extent it apparently does, I'd worry a hell of a lot more about the cars.

rgossip30

Nodin wrote: »

The people we are taking in via the med are refugees. We discussed this before.

They are asylum seekers until proven to be a refugee as you know many are bogus.

Frank Grimes

rgossip30 wrote: »

They are asylum seekers until proven to be a refugee as you know many are bogus.

The people being discussed are refugees, they are not coming here as asylum seekers - they are similar to the programme refugees which Ireland accept.

rgossip30

Are you saying the relevant graph doesn't exist anymore? Unfortunately, you can't expect others to take claims seriously when the part which supports your argument mysteriously disappears


Not my fault the article was removed . You did however see it .

But here is another link and a better graph from Eurostat that deals with figures not fiction or speculation . Note Sweden has the highest rate a country all open border advocates aspire .
This article also states that the siuation is different from the past.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/refugee-crisis-what-europe-can-learn-past

rgossip30

Frank Grimes wrote: »

The people being discussed are refugees, they are not coming here as asylum seekers - they are similar to the programme refugees which Ireland accept.

We were discussing those that arrive from the med not those Syrian refugees that are proven and are coming to Ireland ?

You got a link that refugees are coming from the med to Ireland. My understanding was they are being taken from refugee camps in Turkey unless this had changed .

Frank Grimes

rgossip30 wrote: »

We were discussing those that arrive from the med not program refugees that are coming to Ireland ?

You got a link that that program refugees are coming from the med to Ireland. My understanding was they are being taken from refugee camps in Turkey unless this had changed .

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I posted or did you just not read it properly?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may be "better" if you confine your analysis to the stupidly simplistic metric of "will it prevent some people using the immigration process to arrive in Europe and kill me in a terrorist attack?"

You can completely eliminate your risk of being killed in a car crash by never leaving your house. That would be a stupidly simplistic thing to do, however, because the odds of you getting killed in a car crash anyway are extremely low, and there are negative consequences to never leaving your house.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who get in cars every day of their lives cower in terror at the prospect of Islamic extremists. Neither is particularly likely to kill you, and if fear motivates you to the extent it apparently does, I'd worry a hell of a lot more about the cars.

There is a serious threat to life in affected areas by Islamic state. Europe must also be aware of this fact and act accordingly so by assisting those Arab states currently being slain by IS should not be relegated to second place behind rescuing the migrants. We sit back and allow so many to needlessly cross into our borders.

JPNelsforearm

http://www.nrc.nl/next/2015/12/16/door-asielregels-dreigt-opnieuw-langdurige-werklo-1567405

Rough google translate

"just 35 percent of “long-term refugees” who came to Holland during the last five years of the 1990s actually have a job where they work more than thirty hours a week. Even this number is comprised mostly of “ex-Yugoslavs,” the report said."

"the crime rate among “asylum seekers” in the Netherlands is at least three times higher than the national Dutch average."

"The report followed 33,000 “refugees” who came to the Netherlands between 1995 and 1999, reporting on their activities for a fifteen year period.

Some 23 percent of the immigrants were Iraqis, 19 percent Afghans, 18 percent ex-Yugoslavs, 10 percent Iranians, 3 percent Somalis, and 19 percent “other Africans.”

The study found that of all these people only the ex-Yugoslavs have any meaningful employment figures, with some 65 percent having an eight-hour-a day job. Somalis have the highest unemployment rate.

The report adds that the Netherlands expects an additional 46,000 refugees to have applied for asylum by the end of 2015, and that about “70 percent” are expected to be granted permission to stay."


I suppose this is all lies...and the current wave will be different..

KingBrian2

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

http://www.nrc.nl/next/2015/12/16/door-asielregels-dreigt-opnieuw-langdurige-werklo-1567405

Rough google translate

"just 35 percent of “long-term refugees” who came to Holland during the last five years of the 1990s actually have a job where they work more than thirty hours a week. Even this number is comprised mostly of “ex-Yugoslavs,” the report said."

"the crime rate among “asylum seekers” in the Netherlands is at least three times higher than the national Dutch average."

"The report followed 33,000 “refugees” who came to the Netherlands between 1995 and 1999, reporting on their activities for a fifteen year period.

Some 23 percent of the immigrants were Iraqis, 19 percent Afghans, 18 percent ex-Yugoslavs, 10 percent Iranians, 3 percent Somalis, and 19 percent “other Africans.”

The study found that of all these people only the ex-Yugoslavs have any meaningful employment figures, with some 65 percent having an eight-hour-a day job. Somalis have the highest unemployment rate.

The report adds that the Netherlands expects an additional 46,000 refugees to have applied for asylum by the end of 2015, and that about “70 percent” are expected to be granted permission to stay."


I suppose this is all lies...and the current wave will be different..

The British gvt is aiming to help their resident Somali community. They have a lot of problems over there as well.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is a serious threat to life in affected areas by Islamic state. Europe must also be aware of this fact and act accordingly so by assisting those Arab states currently being slain by IS should not be relegated to second place behind rescuing the migrants. We sit back and allow so many to needlessly cross into our borders.

I've read this three times, and I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've read this three times, and I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

Your saying we are less likely to be harmed by terrorists we are fine, no restrictions on civil liberties no border checks no self censorship or press limitations all the while actions in the region are bomb attack! bomb attack! bomb attack! bomb attack! They can't afford the luxuries of controlling migration and cracking down on fake passport selling. Terrorism exists over there and can materialise over here. Chechnya, the west Balkans are the products of terrorism so easily could Spain, Britain and low countries.