Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The evidence I've encountered supports immigration, that's why I am in favour of it. You can believe whatever you want of course. If I may, what makes your sources more virtuous if they all "have some kind of skin in the game?"

That link is dead by the way.

Do you support large numbers of migrants coming to the EU that is likely to continue for years now that gates are open.

rgossip30

Lockstep wrote: »

Well yes. You claimed that two articles from 2011 are "out of date". I asked what major European immigration or welfare reforms have taken place since then, which your link fails to disprove. We certainly do have an increased number of refugees arriving this year but you've yet to show that this will have a negative effect on the EU's economy, particularly since the Commission does not think there will be a negative effect.

As for Ireland, of our recent asylum seekers half were Pakistani or Bangladeshi despite these groups making up just 7% of the EU total . Evidently, Ireland's asylum seekers are different from the norm.



As I've highlighted a few times in this thread, because Sweden's resources aren't unlimited. The refugees are set to make a small but positive impact on Sweden's economy by 2016. However, refugees require investment, as noted by the European Commission's report . Even though refugees are set to make a positive contribution to the EU's economy, they still require investment in the short term. It's simply too much for a small country like Sweden to bear alone. If I were to invest money in a house, I would see a net benefit over time. This doesn't stop me going bankrupt from buying too many houses to begin with.

Yes benefit or not makes no difference tolerance and limits are reached .

johnnyskeleton

rgossip30 wrote: »

Yes benefit or not makes no difference tolerance and limits are reached .

Care to elaborate or cite sources to demonstrate that the limits are reached and that any additional migration will only be negative?

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

Yes benefit or not makes no difference tolerance and limits are reached .

Indeed, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a shame when the public is so ignorant on the benefits posed by immigration.

In before "but the Cologne attacks!". The 9/11 attacks were mainly carried out by people on student and tourist visas. Unless we completely close our borders, we're always going to get criminals and terrorists in. This doesn't mean we should end tourist or student visas. Likewise with refugees unless we want a completely destabilised Middle East.

Lockstep

rgossip30 wrote: »

Do you support large numbers of migrants coming to the EU that is likely to continue for years now that gates are open.

Is it likely to continue for years? I've yet to see any evidence that this is likely.

Nodin

rgossip30 wrote: »

Do you support large numbers of migrants coming to the EU that is likely to continue for years now that gates are open.

The "gates" are not open, despite the liberal approach taken to refugees recently.

rgossip30 wrote: »

Yes benefit or not makes no difference tolerance and limits are reached ..

So regardless of whether or not migrants,refugees etc are of benefit, hindrance or no discernible effect "tolerance" and "limits" are reached...

What are the "limits" you refer to?

What are you referring to by "tolerance"? Please expand.

Charles Babbage

Lockstep wrote: »

Indeed, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a shame when the public is so ignorant on the benefits posed by immigration.

In before "but the Cologne attacks!". The 9/11 attacks were mainly carried out by people on student and tourist visas. Unless we completely close our borders, we're always going to get criminals and terrorists in. This doesn't mean we should end tourist or student visas. Likewise with refugees unless we want a completely destabilised Middle East.

Tourist and student visas have some process to identify the traveller and some possibility of refusal of the visa. The refugee process does not appear to have a process for refusal based on the character or past behaviour of the person entering your country, it doesn't even have robust processes for identifying the people.

Lockstep

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Tourist and student visas have some process to identify the traveller and some possibility of refusal of the visa. The refugee process does not appear to have a process for refusal based on the character or past behaviour of the person entering your country, it doesn't even have robust processes for identifying the people.

Yes, and even then, the terrorists still got through despite the security measures.
Also the European refugee process most definitely permits rejection if you're deemed a security threat.

Nodin

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Tourist and student visas have some process to identify the traveller and some possibility of refusal of the visa. The refugee process does not appear to have a process for refusal based on the character or past behaviour of the person entering your country, it doesn't even have robust processes for identifying the people.

As each state has its own, you might be a bit more specific as to where you refer.

Charles Babbage

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes, and even then, the terrorists still got through despite the security measures

.

So as long as one terrorist gets trough a visa process that is a justification for having no controls whatsoever?

Also the European refugee process most definitely permits rejection if you're deemed a security threat.

Define security threat? Can you be refused if you are an ordinary decent criminal, groper or rapist?

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

As each state has its own, you might be a bit more specific as to where you refer.

To be fair to him, the UN Handbook requires that background checks not be performed with an asylum seekers Country of Origin.

However, he is wrong in that there is the war crimes/crimes against humanity exclusion clause. AFAIK, all EU states have the exclusion clause in their domestic law.

Lockstep

Charles Babbage wrote: »

.
So as long as one terrorist gets trough a visa process that is a justification for having no controls whatsoever?

Noone is arguing that there should be no controls whatsoever. There's no need for strawmen.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

.
Define security threat? Can you be refused if you are an ordinary decent criminal, groper or rapist?

For groping? Very doubtful. It's unpleasant but hardly a pressing security concern to warrant deportation. I've been groped while working before and yeah, it sucks but it's hardly something worth deporting over.
If you're a rapist, gangster or terrorist? Certainly. It's a no-brainer that such criminals can be denied entry.

Charles Babbage

Lockstep wrote: »

If you're a rapist, gangster or terrorist? Certainly. It's a no-brainer that such criminals can be denied entry.

Burglar, pickpocket?

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

Do you support large numbers of migrants coming to the EU that is likely to continue for years now that gates are open.

The gates are not open despite what the scaremongering press would have you think.

Charles Babbage

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The gates are not open despite what the scaremongering press would have you think.

What proportion are turned away?

Lockstep

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Burglar, pickpocket?

If you want to know where states decide that a criminal becomes a security threat, maybe contact them for clarification?

ancapailldorcha

Charles Babbage wrote: »

What proportion are turned away?

How many are getting in?

K-9

What's the fascination with everybody answering a question with a question?

😊

KingBrian2

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Burglar, pickpocket?

If we barred those people from entering that would include Irish, Spanish, Dutch, British, French so on. We get into an area where anyone with a criminal conviction would be refused entry to the Republic of Ireland.

BigJackC

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The gates are not open despite what the scaremongering press would have you think.

"The scaremongering media?" The same media that tried to cover up the attacks on NYE are now being referred to as "scaremongerers". Hilarious.

Today's Irish Times wrote:

When the first attack details came in, German journalists faced a dilemma: a binding press code forbids them from mentioning the religion or ethnic background of a suspect of a crime unless a justification “exists for the understanding of events”.

Given Cologne police denials – first that there had been a problem, and later that asylum seekers were involved – many media organisations erred on the side of caution in describing the perpetrators – too much caution, some say in hindsight.

Amid soul-searching in mainstream media, why does no one one hold Facebook to account? It may have played a role in disseminating news of the Cologne attacks, but it is also the platform of choice for incitement against refugees.

If the borders are not open, can you then pleases explain how hundreds and thousands of people travel from Turkey to Greece/Italy and then through Macedonia/Coatia/Hungary/Slovenia/Austria and into Germany.

They all have valid visas and documentation to enter these countries, do they?

BigJackC

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If we barred those people from entering that would include Irish, Spanish, Dutch, British, French so on. We get into an area where anyone with a criminal conviction would be refused entry to the Republic of Ireland.

The yanks do it. The Aussies do it. The Canadians do it. I'd have no quarrel with barring non EU citizens with a criminal conviction from entering the EU.

Charles Babbage

BigJackC wrote: »

The yanks do it. The Aussies do it. The Canadians do it. I'd have no quarrel with barring non EU citizens with a criminal conviction from entering the EU.

There is a need to ration entry and excluding criminal types seems as good a way as any. Apart from anything else excluding bowsies will increase public support for the larger number of genuine people, support which is now threatened by laissez faire policies.

ancapailldorcha

BigJackC wrote: »

"The scaremongering media?" The same media that tried to cover up the attacks on NYE are now being referred to as "scaremongerers". Hilarious.

I don't think it's hilarious at all. Also, I'd find it a bit odd that the attacks were "covered up" and then reported. Odd thing for the media to do.

Lockstep

BigJackC wrote: »

The yanks do it. The Aussies do it. The Canadians do it. I'd have no quarrel with barring non EU citizens with a criminal conviction from entering the EU.

No they don't. You can still enter the US, Australia or Canada, depending on the severity of the offence.

Likewise, even with the EU's free movement of persons, a state can deport an EU citizen if they're deemed to constitute a security risk.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is a need to ration entry and excluding criminal types seems as good a way as any. Apart from anything else excluding bowsies will increase public support for the larger number of genuine people, support which is now threatened by laissez faire policies.

We already ration entry and exclude criminal entry. You don't think the EU's member states realise someone is a terrorist and then just wave them through, do you?

BigJackC

Lockstep wrote: »

No they don't. You can still enter the US, Australia or Canada, depending on the severity of the offence.

Anyone who has a criminal conviction will be severely vetted and the immigration officer presiding over the visa application will weigh up the situation and make a decision. Is this currently happening with the millions streaming into the EU? If not, I fail to see your point.

BigJackC

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think it's hilarious at all. Also, I'd find it a bit odd that the attacks were "covered up" and then reported. Odd thing for the media to do.

They didn't report on it as it would reflect unfavourably on the "refugees". The media are now reporting that a group of Pakistanis and a Syrian were violently attacked late last night in Cologne. We didn't have to wait a week to hear about that one.

Reports of a major cover up of migrant assaults by the Swedish media too.

The FT wrote:

Sweden is facing its own version of Germany’s Cologne scandal with police in Stockholm pledging to investigate allegations of covering up mass sexual assault at a festival two years ago. 

Swedish police promised urgently to investigate the claims reported first by Dagens Nyheter newspaper that a gang of youths — reportedly mostly from Afghanistan — groped and molested girls as young as 11 or 12. 

The allegations, which date back to the 2014 youth festival We Are Sthlm, are yet to be confirmed. But they are still likely to cause a political scandal perhaps even greater than the reaction in Germany because of the presence in the Nordic country of an anti-immigration party, the Sweden Democrats, that has in recent months periodically topped opinion polls. 

Peter Agren, who was in charge of policing at the festival, was reported by Dagens Nyheter as saying about the cover-up allegations: “This is a sore point. We sometimes dare not to say how it is because we think it might play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats.” 

Bjorn Soder, a senior Sweden Democrats MP, told Expressen newspaper: “It is a scandal without equal. This must be investigated immediately. Could this be something that happened at several locations in the country, that they do not bother to tell you certain things because it could ‘play into the hands of a particular party’?” 

Both Sweden and Germany became known for their pro-immigrant stance in recent years, with the Nordic country the first to offer permanent residence to all Syrians. But the Nordic country, which has taken in more asylum seekers than any other European country relative to population size, announced a crackdown on immigration at the end of 2015 after several local authorities complained they were at a breaking point, especially over accommodation. 

Dagens Nyheter reported that an internal police report stated that “the problem of young men rubbing themselves up against young girls returned as in previous years”. But when Stockholm police made a public statement on the festival, it said there had been “relatively few crimes”. 

About 50 youths, predominantly from Afghanistan according to Dagens Nyheter’s sources, were involved in sexual assaults that in one case constituted possible rape after fingers were inserted into a girl’s vagina. 

Dan Eliasson, Sweden’s national police commissioner, said overnight that he had only found out about the allegations on Sunday evening. “But one thing is sure: I will ensure that this is investigated.” 

Sweden’s sexual assault statistics have long been under the spotlight, with claims that it has more reported rapes per capita than any other European country. Although several reasons are given including how the statistics are reported, critics have argued it is because of the large number of immigrants Sweden has received.

Lockstep

BigJackC wrote: »

Anyone who has a criminal conviction will be severely vetted and the immigration officer presiding over the visa application will weigh up the situation and make a decision. Is this currently happening with the millions streaming into the EU? If not, I fail to see your point.

Have you ever visited the US? The visa waiver program isn't exactly onerous, nor is the visa system in general. It'd be very easy for a terrorist to slip through. Which is exactly what happened in 9/11.

Refugees seeking asylum in Europe before were subject to background checks: no country will just let anyone in. The key problem in relation to the refugee crisis (currently at just over a million, not the "millions" you claim) is that there's so many it's difficult to process them.
So far, it seems like we've a lot more to worry about from European citizens than refugees in relation to terrorism.

KingBrian2

BigJackC wrote: »

Anyone who has a criminal conviction will be severely vetted and the immigration officer presiding over the visa application will weigh up the situation and make a decision. Is this currently happening with the millions streaming into the EU? If not, I fail to see your point.

Once you get a criminal record your identity is stored on a database accessable to any gvt agency across the world. The advances of technology have really come on this is now possible to do. Now if you commit a crime in Ireland, France, US, Brazil, Japan, UAE it would show up on an Airport terminal in Australia when you enter a country. Nobody wants dangerous people entering their countries. If you want an exit strategy go buy a private plane.

RDM_83 again

Finally getting back to this post

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes, that's the entire point of the Commission: it acts in the interests of the EU (compared to the European Parliament which directly represents the EU citizens and the Council of Ministers which represents governments). The reason it exists is to have a body capable of making EU decisions and avoid NIMBYISM. The Commission is certainly not unaccountable (it can be dismissed by the European Parliament). This doesn't mean it has "an agenda" outside of in the EU's interests as a whole.


The EU rationalised sugar production due to WTO demands on sugar dumping. At any rate, production is set to rise substantially by 2017.

source

Also, if you're going to dismiss a reputable body for not being infallible then your list of sources must be extremely thin.

Would you unconditionally accept a source thats been proven very badly wrong in the past in terms of using badly inaccurate data to support its arguments (thats not wrong after the fact they used the wrong data initially) ? If so I will start firing out the Daily Mail articles in response.
In relation to the mandate of the Commission, its goals and its levels of Democratic accountability thats a whole other thread.

Lockstep wrote: »

That's fair enough: I was referring to the summary on the LSE page. However
from the report
It then concludes

Evidently, the claims that immigration clogs up healthcare is an extremely weak one.

I never said immigration clogs up healthcare, what I do believe is that immigration increases waiting times for natives, and the data supports me.

Lockstep wrote: »

What it means is that unemployed non-EU nationals are less likely to access unemployment benefits than natives: see table 2
Likewise, Barrett and Maitre conclude

Your wrong again, I have pointed out numerous times so far that the conditioned/adjusted data is not what matters when looking at the effect of migrants as a group, you continue to avoid this analysis and keep posting the same material which says that

With few exceptions, non-EU and EU immigrants show substantially higher unconditional probabilities of taking-up unemployment benefits than natives, determining a “disproportional” spending attributable to immigrants.

You reliance on the conditioned data as relevant to discussion of broad impacts see below

However, these raw statistics do not take into account the diverse composition of immigrant groups. To this aim, the remaining columns of Table 2 report the probability of receiving unemployment benefits conditional on unemployment status and on socio-demographic characteristics

Now to make this really really blunt. MIGRANTS DO NO SHARE THE SAME SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NATIVES, ITS MEANINGLESS USING CONDITIONED DATA TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS.
Your own data says it, now tell me why you can't engage or refute that point.

Lockstep wrote: »

Actually, a significant number of immigrants return home

Likewise, the IOM lists the number of return migrants as "considerable"
Likewise, the UN says the following

source

I don't have a link for the first quote and the other UN one is just minimalist power points so will deal with the Turin paper.

Return migration rates were lower than for
Nordic immigrants already in the early 1970s and when we come to the 1990s, only ten percent of the
non-Nordic immigration cohort of 1990 had returned within five years.

I know you will respond with the paragraph below that this lack of returns is to do with them being refugees/ people restricted for re-entry, for this to be a valid defense you have to be stating that one would grant permanent unconditional residency rights and if that occurs then the pensions/benefit things kicks in too an even greater extent

Additionally there is the issue of capital flight, the removals of those migrants saving from the economy of their host country and the fact that many (most) countries allow pensions.

I'm not hugely opposed to EU migration in situations where there is equal purchasing power parity and wage levels between member states which is where the data in that paper supports high rates of return, the situation specific to this thread is exactly the situation that your own source shows low rates of return for.

Lockstep wrote: »

Let me put it this way: if I started saying that immigration increases employment and I stuck to this, even when meta-analysis show that the effect is neutral to very slightly positive, would you see this is as proving my point or would it show that the evidence is far too inconclusive to claim immigration causes employment?
When the evidence is so mixed, it's a very weak argument to maintain that immigration increases unemployment.

Or lets put this more accurately, if you had data that said that food prices for example either stayed neutral according to some studies or increased in price slightly according to others, yet you claimed that the prices fell or stayed neutral what would you say the person is doing, you would say they are grossly misrepresenting the data.
IF THE DATA WAS MIXED IN THE WAY YOU INSIST ON MISREPRESENTING IT AS SOME OF THE STUDIES WOULD SHOW A DECREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT WITH MIGRATION. Guess what they don't, the best case is that they don't increase Unemployment, when the data shows that it impacts the lower ends of society

Yes I have a strident tone in this post but you have consistently refused to identify with the data in your own links even when its highlighted and its actually quiet time consuming looking through these pdf's etc

The Randy Riverbeast

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So a person could, in theory, lose their refugee status because they were a threat to Irish public security, but they could also remain here because to deport them would expose them to a risk of death or loss of freedom.

What would happen in that situation? They would no longer be legally allowed to stay here but have to be kept in the country.

Deleted User wrote: »

I do find it strange that 72% of the "asylum seekers" are male.

Seems odd to leave the women and children and old people in the middle of the war zone.

If there are as many rapists and terrorists among them as some people think I wouldn't be too fond of sitting my wife and children in between the guy waving an IS flag and the guy groping all the women.