Not sure what EU defines as ‘No Right’ to asylum but the article seems to be saying they want to crack down on people who feign a genuine hardship/life threatening reason for asylum. Reasonable.
The problem is that it's in most countries' best interest *not* to enforce this.
An immigrant leaves country A, crosses through country B, and heads to country C to apply for asylum. Safety issues aside, the immigrant *should* be applying for asylum in country B. But country B has two choices: Enforce the guidelines and take on the burden associated with accepting the immigrant, or turn a blind eye and let him become country C's problem. Guess which one gets chosen?
[Nope](https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/), that's a lie spread by the far right in western Europe to try to put pressure on the border countries to commit atrocities to prevent refugees entering Europe.
If we’re getting to a point where the aggregate supply curve is so tight that countries with tons of land literally cannot absorb literate, skilled workers from places like India and the Philippines, then the world as a whole is in grave danger.
I looked at your profile to see if it's a trap. I would hope you can draw the conclusions yourself and you're not trying to lead me into an argument
Id say Ratio the population of Ireland vs Canada. Vs our immigration rates vs our housing crisis. Add crime to the mix. Bon Appétit
Ohh. And read some of the Irish friends comments about corporate ownership etc. It seems like it's basically the same thing
I'd agree except for the crime bit, canadian immigrants statistically create less crime because we generally don't accept asylum seekers to the same scale as the EU did.
That's okay, I'd have to look over the numbers again. I'm definitely not dying on that hill.
I think we need to focus on more skilled immigrants , less parachute babies, and intentionally stranded international students working at tim Hortons.
But with that, I wouldn't mind some more asylum seekers because, I don't mind helping people. I don't like being taking advantage of. Of course we would need a proper screening process for that. Maybe a better international peacekeeping presence to discern that, which we use to have and used to be a matter or pride.
In my experience, while some people come from universally known warzones or areas of incredible persecution, there are many gray areas.
In most cases the difference of culture, psychology, even folklore and the incredible number of dialects makes it extremely difficult to make an acceptable sorting between rightful asylum seekers and common economic migrants. Trained professionals, linguists and psychologists are hard to find.
there is a LOT of shady shit going on with visas, government subsidies, family clans and stuff like that. Isn't talked about a lot because it is a very touchy subject in a lot of european countries. Genuine immigrants are very much welcome, but there are enough opportunists among them to slowly drain a country of welfare
The EU isn't fucking "Ruined"
Why does everything have to be the end of the world with you people? There can never just be an issue with society.
No, it has to be "THIS PROBLEM WILL DESTROY THE WEST"
Fucking grow up and learn how to talk about problems.
As someone who has a masters in translation and has migrated twice:
I agree they should make the effort.
But natives truly do NOT aporeciate what a herculean task this is.
I learned Russian at 18 in a host family. Russian is an absolute bitch for those who dont speak a slavic language, aka a language from the same group.
I had learned 5 languages before, but they were all western-european. Holy culture shock, batman. Reading alone took me three months, due to the cyrillic.
That said, i had nothing else to do that year and was surrounded by supportive russian speaking people.
Then i immigrated to Norway. Norwegian is a germanic language, part of my native language group. I could read 70 percent before even starting my study.
However - despite my backgound of Norwegian being my 10th language and being super similar to my own mother tongue, I had life to figure out as well, slowing me down significantly.
Between bureaucracy, integration, culture shock, mental health issues, finding a job and housing, being isolated and not getting the chance or support to use and practice the language..it was a fucking Pita.
And ime, Arabic was worse than Russian to learn, in uni.
I cannot imagine being from Africa, coming here, not even being able to write in your own language, not having a particular aptitude or interest in languages, or understand how languages differ and are built, then having to jump language groups, while figuring out life, and finding people willing to let you practice the language.
Seriously, people have NO clue, unless they’ve done it 🤷♀️
And yet, I agree they *need* to for the good of the country, and their life quality - they just need a lot more support and understanding than they currently get while they chew on this, imho.
especially integration. if people would work on proper integration, including integration into the host countries cultures and societal norms, would solve so many issues people have with migrants.
I’m pro immigration but this is totally fair. If you don’t qualify to be a refugee or legally immigrate, gtfo. Just because you risked everything to cross illegally and made it doesn’t give you right to be here. It’s spit in face to legal immigrants who followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line.
I think the main problem is that we do not really differentiate between criminal and non-criminal refugees. We should permanently rewoke / deny refugees status when refugees commit crimes and at the same time we should grand refugee status to people who do not meet the criteria but try to integrate and never commit crimes. The law is too harsh for people who try to integrate and to lash for people who don't.
While I generally agree, this part is a bit misleading:
> followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line.
There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally.
He is talking of economic migrants as well, not refugees only. For them there is a fixed value that are accepted every year by each country. If you "arrive" late, you have to wait next year.
>There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally.
Don't countries have a right to let in who they want?
In general, countries are obligated by international law to take care of refugees. However, if someone is deemed to be not a refugee you can deport them. This article is referring how the EU is planning to deport more people who are not considered refugees.
It's quite difficult to asses whether someone is a refugee. From some countries one can say everybody is a refugee and nobody can live there safely, for example, in Syria, it's probable one leaves Syria because of war. But for countries like Iran, it's more complicated, there is no war there, however, a politically active gay Jew might argue that his life in danger in Iran, thus qualifying for asylum.
Additionally, it makes sense that people fleeing conflict are unable to bring identification (as their state might not be able to provide it, or it got lost along the way), refugees from safe countries can throw their identification and pretend to be from a country which is at war. It takes time to figure out what is true.
That's exactly the poster's point. It's a binary system. Countries choose who they let in (family of citizens, those with special skills, etc.) and excludes others (unskilled economic migrants). No amount of applying or waiting around by the excluded group is going to make them eligible for a visa, so their choice is often to gamble on an illegal act or stay put.
If you're from Europe yes no problem everyone supports that but if you're in the USA, for sum reason people from all over the world like to comment and ask wtf is going on. Like they are being personally attacked
Well currently in Portugal there is a big line. Migration office is getting millions of calls per day when they can answer a maximum volume of 1000-2000. For this reason they have extended all visas and residence permits until 31st December of 2023, as it's impossible for anyone to fix their situation even if they want to.
There is definitely a queue.
> There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally.
Thousands of people apply for legal immigration to the EU, there is certainly a line for them to review your paperwork, not to mention you often have to resumit parts of it, it can take months to years specially in african countries
I doubt they're physically in a line slowly walking up to a desk. It takes time for clerks to process paperwork and while the paperwork is being processed you are "in line". My dad is a legal immigrant and waited "in line" for his stuff to process.
as someone who had to go through German immigration legally, the Ausländerbehorde already spits in your face (not treating you as human but as a product) and i don't want to imagine what refugees have to go through
If they refuse to return, I’m assuming the Netherlands has at least dropped their resident permits. So how do these folks get a job? I’m sure there are factories or places where they hire labour off the books and pay them less than minimum wage but that’s not sustainable and there aren’t that many jobs of such nature compared to the population of illegal immigrants. So for a “legal job” don’t these guys need to provide papers and those get verified by some agency for a background check.
Just wondering how illegal immigrants work, sustain, live, do basic things like open accounts, get a rental place, etc. without the right documents
Yes, they work off the books in places like you mentioned. Sometimes they can get limited legal work and help through charities (like Caritas). Others sell drugs to make ends meet. In some countries, the social system will give them temporary support while their asylum application is pending too. As for finding a place to live, there's always a shady landlord that will overcharge you to live in a shared room.
It's not an easy life at all and it's not sustainable as you said. This is just what I know of a friend's experience (Nigerian migrant). I think depending on where you come from and what kind of groups from your home country are already present in the new country, how you survive can look a lot different. If there's a community of people from your home country where you are, you can get help there and find out sources of work and housing.
Yeah seems really shitty and hard when you think about it. Is it really the good life with just modern infrastructure that’s not even supporting you in such cases. In some cases, like war torn lands, I do know a life like this is still a lot better. And for those folks, I really feel for them
Considering turkey's recent behaviour, I guess a bunch of European countries are extremely worried about him unleashing the refugees [he extorts the EU with](https://www.ft.com/content/0481ab10-6f5e-11ea-89df-41bea055720b).
That and the expected billion climate refugees - as even with a stop of the AMOC and subsequent moving of the gulf stream, it would very likely still be a paradise compared to the horror closer to the equator.
As an Afghan-American, I don't see this as too complicated a situation.
The reality is that when any country has problems - you have the people who contribute to the problem, and the people who are victims of the problem.
My dad got political asylum and was one of the first Afghan refugees in the US. He worked for Afghanistan's finance ministry, and the Soviets wanted to kill everyone there to turn the country communist.
My best friend is Mexican - and even we agree that there has to be some degree of vetting. If someone runs away from gang violence in Mexico - and then you house them next to members of those same gang - they're not better off.
Caesar Chavez wanted increased border security, because he knew labor standards for farm workers wouldn't improve if an endless supply of illegal labor kept undercutting them.
Even the Dalai Lama has controversial views on immigration.
Political Asylum is not a complicated thing. For someone to be targeted by a government, they usually have to do something prominent or substantial enough to annoy their government.
My dad worked for the finance ministry and had everything from paychecks to meetings with the UN.
If an Iranian woman thinks hijabs are wrong, and now Iran wants to kill her after photos of her leak. Those photos are the proof.
At the same time, it's not hard to maintain this. If my dad started making YouTube videos about communism being good, he should be deported for lying about his beliefs that communism is bad.
If a woman escapes so she is anti-hijab. Then there should be a problem if she's seen wearing one.
Many religious conservatives objectify women and see them as baby making machines. This is often a major reason for why so many countries are in bad shape.
Afghanistan's population went from 10 million in 1990 to 40 million in 2020 - just 30 years quadrupled the population.
There is an ideal population size for any region, as you only have so much food, shelter, and resources.
There are countries that are overpopulated. China has 1.4 billion people - if they reproduced at Afghan rates, they'd be nearly 6 billion in 30 years. With one child policies, they ensure the right population size so people don't starve to death, and those children can live better lives than their parents.
Successful countries have beliefs, practices, cultures, and policies that made them better.
Falling countries have beliefs, practices, culture, and policies that made them fail.
If in the US we brought a bunch of Taliban from Afghanistan and their wives - they would reproduce quickly and create a big problem that never would have existed before.
Unfortunately religion and government sees more people as being more money. Religion encourages baby-making, and governments encourage immigration to maintain population growth.
However many countries need population shrinkage in order to be simply have enough food and resources for their people. Endless growth is not sustainable.
In the end, whether you believe in God or nature - starvation will keep the population of humans, animals, and plants in check - and this has always occurred throughout the history of life.
Educated people try to wait to have kids until they know they can properly support them.
A lot of countries are actually encouraging people to have children because the birth rate is becoming less than 2. This will cause big issue for tax money coming in. Just need to look at the issues Japan are having to see why governments are trying to encourage this, even if families can't afford it.
The way climate change is going, it may soon be essentially impossible to send migrants back to their home countries.
It is one thing to debate whether or not these countries are politically and socioeconomically stable enough for them to return, but it's another to send them back to be cooked to death in the heat.
The first one I'm OK with, the second I am not.
Is it me, or does it feel like Asylum seekers have increased 10 fold in the past 10 years. In the US, no one is an illegal immigrant, everyone is seeking asylum. I thought asylum use to be a very specific thing that had to be granted in advance (going from tv shows, haha) and rarely heard asylum was granted and now every migrant uses it.
If you're an economic migrant with all your paperwork, it's easy to get caught and quickly deported or have your request for immigration denied. If you declare asylum, there's typically an entire process that you have to go through, leaving you plenty of time to disappear and get lost in the shuffle if you think your asylum application will be denied.
If you show up with all your paperwork, they can quickly evaluate you. However, if your paperwork mysteriously gets "lost" or "destroyed", now what? Did the occupiers destroy it or did you just burn it yourself? Showing up with nothing but the clothes on your back and a sob story makes it more difficult for them to throw you out the way you came in.
And then there's the sympathy angle. "I'm here fleeing persecution because I wanted to send my daughter to school" is a much more sympathetic story to tell than "My country sucks and the jobs here pay $5 an hour more than I make back home".
In a nutshell, migrants have every reason in the world to lie about why they're seeking asylum, and doing so greatly increases the chances they'll get to stay.
A country should decide how many people they can support with the resources they have. If the native population goes down, then they should accept that number of refugees. Otherwise, I see no reason a country should put such a burden and risk to its own populace.
I don’t understand Europe’s approach to immigration laws. I know it’s a contentious issue, that’s fair, but there should at least have an agreement on how to even start processing all those new arrivals - instead they just keep going there and form slums. Coordinated all throughout the EU, too.
Do a triage, is the new arrival part of a group that under threat or persecution? Move them to the refugee line, which is a well defined and somewhat mature international law. They are not? Put them in the line for non-refugee new arrivals. Do even the most basic of assessments to see who is who.
The lack of organisation is terrible: for the immigrants, for the host countries, for the host countries citizens, for the perception of immigrants to those citizens.
I understand there’s a lack of will and disagreement of what should be done, but slums and tent cities should be agreed by wall to be a bad thing.
There is going to be a lot of re-population, in between countries, immigration, whatever, you can't blame anyone looking for a better life.
I have no problem with it unless they have exhibited violence.
They have to have documentation and submit to fingerprinting so at the least they can be run thru INTERPOL.
A DNA test wouldn't hurt either, I know this sounds like going to far but every country wants to keep there citizens safe.
Let's go further, what skills or knowledge do they possess? Can they be a productive member of society ?
That's what we've been doing so far, and it doesn't work. You can't just open the door, forget about it and just hope that they "are not violent" or something.
If you want open doors, you have to build systems in place to promote integration and conforming to laws and customs in our countries. There's plenty of studies about the psychology that goes into migration and how to achieve good migration. Simple things like making them feel like citizens as long as they don't commit major crimes (i.e. they don't need to feel like things outside their control, like losing their job, can get them kicked out), systems that promote them mixing with locals, discouraging ghettos (i.e. making sure migrants distribute nicely across a city instead of being confined to a few streets)...
Yours are reactionary measures, letting them come in and then reacting to their behavior. This simply doesn't work.
> I have no problem with it unless they have exhibited violence.
This is the one thing I hate. You are given the chance at a better life and you abuse that privilege. I say if that happens those people should be first on the list to be sent back.
In the grand scheme, although I think every nation should open its borders to people seeking a better life, that comes with complications. Nations that are "well off" will be drowned because the vast majority of the world doesn't have western standards, and you can't simply "adopt" people as +1 citizens, they bring a lot of the cultural and societal issues with them - not just assimilation - but why their countries failed in the first place.
Secondly, it's like homelessness. Adopting people from worse-off countries doesn't do anything in the grand scheme of things. You need to treat the cause, not the symptom. Europe (and the west) would do better to help grow other nations than just adopt their refugees.
Which is a WHOLE OTHER complicated mess. But I think most will agree that adopting people en masse with good will hurts everyone whereas the complicated issue of cultural, economic, and political investment will be better in the long run.
As a LGBT person it kind of scares me. Taking in so many men from places where LGBT people are outright killed is terrifying. Not going to lie I'm starting to feel unsafe taking public transportation in Sweden when I never had that problem even 12 years ago.
Yup future is very worrying with the rise of fascism and authoritarism increasing.
Current migration is tip of the iceberg to what we will see in a few decades time to climate change migration. The funny (well sad) part is the people who detest refugees/migrants are against any measure to reduce climate change as well.
The United States has this issue, too many people believe seeking Asylum means you can enter the country illegally.....you still need to go through the legal port of entry and process. Illegal is illegal....you could be Jesus Christ crossing border.....still an illegal immigrant.
> too many people believe seeking Asylum means you can enter the country illegally....
Well, that's exactly what US law says about the matter, like it or not:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
> Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (**whether or not at a designated port of arrival** and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
The issue is integration.
Alot of people who emigrate will head to an enclave filled with people from their original nation.
The enclave allows them to operate as they would in their home country and that makes it obvious they hold different values which annoys the locals.
As a fun example a lot of British people retired in Spain. They never learnt the language, insulted johnny foreigner in their own country and generally transposed some of the worst aspects of British culture.
Immigration is fine, but the people who migrate need to learn and adapt to the society they live in. That means learning the language, building relationships with locals and accepting the host nations values.
The UK tried an open door policy in the 00's and it built up a lot of resentment in the native population, it didn't help people complaining were immediately labelled as racist (some/many were, but it shut down discussion on the integration issues)
My family and I moved from Poland to the UK in 2003, and let me tell you, the rampant racism seen in kids my age (I was 7 turning 8 when we moved) made it sometimes incredibly hard to socialise/integrate. Half the kids hated me and spew shit like "go back to your own country, you Polish git" on the daily, so mental health ended up being a problem right from the start.
Then again, I was shocked to see the difference in classmates between Poland and England. In one country, we were white as a sheet of paper, and in the other there were probably only like 50% of kids that were actually English. The rest were of African, Asian descent.
>As a fun example a lot of British people retired in Spain. They never learnt the language, insulted johnny foreigner in their own country and generally transposed some of the worst aspects of British culture.
Same with Russian-speaking people in Lithuania, most of them can't speak/not willing to learn Lithuanian even living 20, 30 or more years in Lithuania.
Not sure what EU defines as ‘No Right’ to asylum but the article seems to be saying they want to crack down on people who feign a genuine hardship/life threatening reason for asylum. Reasonable.
Its people who have been denied and wont leave. Which is alot of people.
[удалено]
The problem is that it's in most countries' best interest *not* to enforce this. An immigrant leaves country A, crosses through country B, and heads to country C to apply for asylum. Safety issues aside, the immigrant *should* be applying for asylum in country B. But country B has two choices: Enforce the guidelines and take on the burden associated with accepting the immigrant, or turn a blind eye and let him become country C's problem. Guess which one gets chosen?
Yeah but no neighboring country wants to deal with all that. So they turn a blind eye to those passing through.
[Nope](https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/), that's a lie spread by the far right in western Europe to try to put pressure on the border countries to commit atrocities to prevent refugees entering Europe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If we’re getting to a point where the aggregate supply curve is so tight that countries with tons of land literally cannot absorb literate, skilled workers from places like India and the Philippines, then the world as a whole is in grave danger.
We have tons of land, but all of us (including the immigrants) want to live in a generous 10% of it.
Would you accept someone with degree, that speaks English and works in digital marketing industry? Genuine question
Right now Canada has a dire shortage of doctors, engineers, and, uh... digital marketers.
If we have the housing and healthcare, then yes.
I looked at your profile to see if it's a trap. I would hope you can draw the conclusions yourself and you're not trying to lead me into an argument Id say Ratio the population of Ireland vs Canada. Vs our immigration rates vs our housing crisis. Add crime to the mix. Bon Appétit Ohh. And read some of the Irish friends comments about corporate ownership etc. It seems like it's basically the same thing
I'd agree except for the crime bit, canadian immigrants statistically create less crime because we generally don't accept asylum seekers to the same scale as the EU did.
That's okay, I'd have to look over the numbers again. I'm definitely not dying on that hill. I think we need to focus on more skilled immigrants , less parachute babies, and intentionally stranded international students working at tim Hortons. But with that, I wouldn't mind some more asylum seekers because, I don't mind helping people. I don't like being taking advantage of. Of course we would need a proper screening process for that. Maybe a better international peacekeeping presence to discern that, which we use to have and used to be a matter or pride.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In my experience, while some people come from universally known warzones or areas of incredible persecution, there are many gray areas. In most cases the difference of culture, psychology, even folklore and the incredible number of dialects makes it extremely difficult to make an acceptable sorting between rightful asylum seekers and common economic migrants. Trained professionals, linguists and psychologists are hard to find.
Lot's of these men are running from military service/militia recruitment, which isn't persecution but still makes some amount of sense
Tbh human beings breaking off into tribes(countries) is not the best way to human. We’re just too full of primate DNA to do any better.
How do you even vet for this? Asylum seeker "Gangs were threatening me and my family" Receiving country-- "ok thats legit"
there is a LOT of shady shit going on with visas, government subsidies, family clans and stuff like that. Isn't talked about a lot because it is a very touchy subject in a lot of european countries. Genuine immigrants are very much welcome, but there are enough opportunists among them to slowly drain a country of welfare
I guess a bunch of European countries are extremely worried about him
Bout damn time
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The EU isn't fucking "Ruined" Why does everything have to be the end of the world with you people? There can never just be an issue with society. No, it has to be "THIS PROBLEM WILL DESTROY THE WEST" Fucking grow up and learn how to talk about problems.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone who has a masters in translation and has migrated twice: I agree they should make the effort. But natives truly do NOT aporeciate what a herculean task this is. I learned Russian at 18 in a host family. Russian is an absolute bitch for those who dont speak a slavic language, aka a language from the same group. I had learned 5 languages before, but they were all western-european. Holy culture shock, batman. Reading alone took me three months, due to the cyrillic. That said, i had nothing else to do that year and was surrounded by supportive russian speaking people. Then i immigrated to Norway. Norwegian is a germanic language, part of my native language group. I could read 70 percent before even starting my study. However - despite my backgound of Norwegian being my 10th language and being super similar to my own mother tongue, I had life to figure out as well, slowing me down significantly. Between bureaucracy, integration, culture shock, mental health issues, finding a job and housing, being isolated and not getting the chance or support to use and practice the language..it was a fucking Pita. And ime, Arabic was worse than Russian to learn, in uni. I cannot imagine being from Africa, coming here, not even being able to write in your own language, not having a particular aptitude or interest in languages, or understand how languages differ and are built, then having to jump language groups, while figuring out life, and finding people willing to let you practice the language. Seriously, people have NO clue, unless they’ve done it 🤷♀️ And yet, I agree they *need* to for the good of the country, and their life quality - they just need a lot more support and understanding than they currently get while they chew on this, imho.
[удалено]
especially integration. if people would work on proper integration, including integration into the host countries cultures and societal norms, would solve so many issues people have with migrants.
[удалено]
I’m pro immigration but this is totally fair. If you don’t qualify to be a refugee or legally immigrate, gtfo. Just because you risked everything to cross illegally and made it doesn’t give you right to be here. It’s spit in face to legal immigrants who followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line.
I think the main problem is that we do not really differentiate between criminal and non-criminal refugees. We should permanently rewoke / deny refugees status when refugees commit crimes and at the same time we should grand refugee status to people who do not meet the criteria but try to integrate and never commit crimes. The law is too harsh for people who try to integrate and to lash for people who don't.
While I generally agree, this part is a bit misleading: > followed the rules and patiently waited their turn in line. There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally.
He is talking of economic migrants as well, not refugees only. For them there is a fixed value that are accepted every year by each country. If you "arrive" late, you have to wait next year.
>There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally. Don't countries have a right to let in who they want?
In general, countries are obligated by international law to take care of refugees. However, if someone is deemed to be not a refugee you can deport them. This article is referring how the EU is planning to deport more people who are not considered refugees. It's quite difficult to asses whether someone is a refugee. From some countries one can say everybody is a refugee and nobody can live there safely, for example, in Syria, it's probable one leaves Syria because of war. But for countries like Iran, it's more complicated, there is no war there, however, a politically active gay Jew might argue that his life in danger in Iran, thus qualifying for asylum. Additionally, it makes sense that people fleeing conflict are unable to bring identification (as their state might not be able to provide it, or it got lost along the way), refugees from safe countries can throw their identification and pretend to be from a country which is at war. It takes time to figure out what is true.
That's exactly the poster's point. It's a binary system. Countries choose who they let in (family of citizens, those with special skills, etc.) and excludes others (unskilled economic migrants). No amount of applying or waiting around by the excluded group is going to make them eligible for a visa, so their choice is often to gamble on an illegal act or stay put.
If you're from Europe yes no problem everyone supports that but if you're in the USA, for sum reason people from all over the world like to comment and ask wtf is going on. Like they are being personally attacked
I think they are talking about the people that illegally immigrate instead of waiting in their home country for their application to get processed.
Seeking asylum is not illegal.
Well currently in Portugal there is a big line. Migration office is getting millions of calls per day when they can answer a maximum volume of 1000-2000. For this reason they have extended all visas and residence permits until 31st December of 2023, as it's impossible for anyone to fix their situation even if they want to. There is definitely a queue.
[удалено]
> There is no line. You either qualify or you don't. If you don't qualify, there is no amount of waiting in line that will allow you to immigrate legally. Thousands of people apply for legal immigration to the EU, there is certainly a line for them to review your paperwork, not to mention you often have to resumit parts of it, it can take months to years specially in african countries
I doubt they're physically in a line slowly walking up to a desk. It takes time for clerks to process paperwork and while the paperwork is being processed you are "in line". My dad is a legal immigrant and waited "in line" for his stuff to process.
as someone who had to go through German immigration legally, the Ausländerbehorde already spits in your face (not treating you as human but as a product) and i don't want to imagine what refugees have to go through
Fair enough
Trying to work out all those who arrived because of economic migration and not genuine persecution will be the biggest challenge
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If they refuse to return, I’m assuming the Netherlands has at least dropped their resident permits. So how do these folks get a job? I’m sure there are factories or places where they hire labour off the books and pay them less than minimum wage but that’s not sustainable and there aren’t that many jobs of such nature compared to the population of illegal immigrants. So for a “legal job” don’t these guys need to provide papers and those get verified by some agency for a background check. Just wondering how illegal immigrants work, sustain, live, do basic things like open accounts, get a rental place, etc. without the right documents
Yes, they work off the books in places like you mentioned. Sometimes they can get limited legal work and help through charities (like Caritas). Others sell drugs to make ends meet. In some countries, the social system will give them temporary support while their asylum application is pending too. As for finding a place to live, there's always a shady landlord that will overcharge you to live in a shared room. It's not an easy life at all and it's not sustainable as you said. This is just what I know of a friend's experience (Nigerian migrant). I think depending on where you come from and what kind of groups from your home country are already present in the new country, how you survive can look a lot different. If there's a community of people from your home country where you are, you can get help there and find out sources of work and housing.
Yeah seems really shitty and hard when you think about it. Is it really the good life with just modern infrastructure that’s not even supporting you in such cases. In some cases, like war torn lands, I do know a life like this is still a lot better. And for those folks, I really feel for them
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Considering turkey's recent behaviour, I guess a bunch of European countries are extremely worried about him unleashing the refugees [he extorts the EU with](https://www.ft.com/content/0481ab10-6f5e-11ea-89df-41bea055720b). That and the expected billion climate refugees - as even with a stop of the AMOC and subsequent moving of the gulf stream, it would very likely still be a paradise compared to the horror closer to the equator.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As an Afghan-American, I don't see this as too complicated a situation. The reality is that when any country has problems - you have the people who contribute to the problem, and the people who are victims of the problem. My dad got political asylum and was one of the first Afghan refugees in the US. He worked for Afghanistan's finance ministry, and the Soviets wanted to kill everyone there to turn the country communist. My best friend is Mexican - and even we agree that there has to be some degree of vetting. If someone runs away from gang violence in Mexico - and then you house them next to members of those same gang - they're not better off. Caesar Chavez wanted increased border security, because he knew labor standards for farm workers wouldn't improve if an endless supply of illegal labor kept undercutting them. Even the Dalai Lama has controversial views on immigration. Political Asylum is not a complicated thing. For someone to be targeted by a government, they usually have to do something prominent or substantial enough to annoy their government. My dad worked for the finance ministry and had everything from paychecks to meetings with the UN. If an Iranian woman thinks hijabs are wrong, and now Iran wants to kill her after photos of her leak. Those photos are the proof. At the same time, it's not hard to maintain this. If my dad started making YouTube videos about communism being good, he should be deported for lying about his beliefs that communism is bad. If a woman escapes so she is anti-hijab. Then there should be a problem if she's seen wearing one. Many religious conservatives objectify women and see them as baby making machines. This is often a major reason for why so many countries are in bad shape. Afghanistan's population went from 10 million in 1990 to 40 million in 2020 - just 30 years quadrupled the population. There is an ideal population size for any region, as you only have so much food, shelter, and resources. There are countries that are overpopulated. China has 1.4 billion people - if they reproduced at Afghan rates, they'd be nearly 6 billion in 30 years. With one child policies, they ensure the right population size so people don't starve to death, and those children can live better lives than their parents. Successful countries have beliefs, practices, cultures, and policies that made them better. Falling countries have beliefs, practices, culture, and policies that made them fail. If in the US we brought a bunch of Taliban from Afghanistan and their wives - they would reproduce quickly and create a big problem that never would have existed before. Unfortunately religion and government sees more people as being more money. Religion encourages baby-making, and governments encourage immigration to maintain population growth. However many countries need population shrinkage in order to be simply have enough food and resources for their people. Endless growth is not sustainable. In the end, whether you believe in God or nature - starvation will keep the population of humans, animals, and plants in check - and this has always occurred throughout the history of life. Educated people try to wait to have kids until they know they can properly support them.
A lot of countries are actually encouraging people to have children because the birth rate is becoming less than 2. This will cause big issue for tax money coming in. Just need to look at the issues Japan are having to see why governments are trying to encourage this, even if families can't afford it.
excellent comment
[удалено]
The way climate change is going, it may soon be essentially impossible to send migrants back to their home countries. It is one thing to debate whether or not these countries are politically and socioeconomically stable enough for them to return, but it's another to send them back to be cooked to death in the heat. The first one I'm OK with, the second I am not.
Is it me, or does it feel like Asylum seekers have increased 10 fold in the past 10 years. In the US, no one is an illegal immigrant, everyone is seeking asylum. I thought asylum use to be a very specific thing that had to be granted in advance (going from tv shows, haha) and rarely heard asylum was granted and now every migrant uses it.
If you're an economic migrant with all your paperwork, it's easy to get caught and quickly deported or have your request for immigration denied. If you declare asylum, there's typically an entire process that you have to go through, leaving you plenty of time to disappear and get lost in the shuffle if you think your asylum application will be denied. If you show up with all your paperwork, they can quickly evaluate you. However, if your paperwork mysteriously gets "lost" or "destroyed", now what? Did the occupiers destroy it or did you just burn it yourself? Showing up with nothing but the clothes on your back and a sob story makes it more difficult for them to throw you out the way you came in. And then there's the sympathy angle. "I'm here fleeing persecution because I wanted to send my daughter to school" is a much more sympathetic story to tell than "My country sucks and the jobs here pay $5 an hour more than I make back home". In a nutshell, migrants have every reason in the world to lie about why they're seeking asylum, and doing so greatly increases the chances they'll get to stay.
A country should decide how many people they can support with the resources they have. If the native population goes down, then they should accept that number of refugees. Otherwise, I see no reason a country should put such a burden and risk to its own populace.
[удалено]
Having a strong social safety net and open borders are fundamentally incompatible.
I don’t understand Europe’s approach to immigration laws. I know it’s a contentious issue, that’s fair, but there should at least have an agreement on how to even start processing all those new arrivals - instead they just keep going there and form slums. Coordinated all throughout the EU, too. Do a triage, is the new arrival part of a group that under threat or persecution? Move them to the refugee line, which is a well defined and somewhat mature international law. They are not? Put them in the line for non-refugee new arrivals. Do even the most basic of assessments to see who is who. The lack of organisation is terrible: for the immigrants, for the host countries, for the host countries citizens, for the perception of immigrants to those citizens. I understand there’s a lack of will and disagreement of what should be done, but slums and tent cities should be agreed by wall to be a bad thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is going to be a lot of re-population, in between countries, immigration, whatever, you can't blame anyone looking for a better life. I have no problem with it unless they have exhibited violence. They have to have documentation and submit to fingerprinting so at the least they can be run thru INTERPOL. A DNA test wouldn't hurt either, I know this sounds like going to far but every country wants to keep there citizens safe. Let's go further, what skills or knowledge do they possess? Can they be a productive member of society ?
They also need to understand women and LGBT have equal rights, and democracy and freedom of speech is a thing here.
How can that be done if we are considered weak and decadent? How can we integrate when there is no need or genuine pressure?
I'm a third generation immigrant, hearing second generation immigrants talk about how disgusting gay people are is so depressing.
That's what we've been doing so far, and it doesn't work. You can't just open the door, forget about it and just hope that they "are not violent" or something. If you want open doors, you have to build systems in place to promote integration and conforming to laws and customs in our countries. There's plenty of studies about the psychology that goes into migration and how to achieve good migration. Simple things like making them feel like citizens as long as they don't commit major crimes (i.e. they don't need to feel like things outside their control, like losing their job, can get them kicked out), systems that promote them mixing with locals, discouraging ghettos (i.e. making sure migrants distribute nicely across a city instead of being confined to a few streets)... Yours are reactionary measures, letting them come in and then reacting to their behavior. This simply doesn't work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> I have no problem with it unless they have exhibited violence. This is the one thing I hate. You are given the chance at a better life and you abuse that privilege. I say if that happens those people should be first on the list to be sent back.
>you can't blame anyone looking for a better life I can absolutely blame people for abandoning their country and people.
Why?
[удалено]
[удалено]
In the grand scheme, although I think every nation should open its borders to people seeking a better life, that comes with complications. Nations that are "well off" will be drowned because the vast majority of the world doesn't have western standards, and you can't simply "adopt" people as +1 citizens, they bring a lot of the cultural and societal issues with them - not just assimilation - but why their countries failed in the first place. Secondly, it's like homelessness. Adopting people from worse-off countries doesn't do anything in the grand scheme of things. You need to treat the cause, not the symptom. Europe (and the west) would do better to help grow other nations than just adopt their refugees. Which is a WHOLE OTHER complicated mess. But I think most will agree that adopting people en masse with good will hurts everyone whereas the complicated issue of cultural, economic, and political investment will be better in the long run.
As a LGBT person it kind of scares me. Taking in so many men from places where LGBT people are outright killed is terrifying. Not going to lie I'm starting to feel unsafe taking public transportation in Sweden when I never had that problem even 12 years ago.
Be smart, come to Denmark. We saw this shit coming, and you're more than welcome, all jokes aside.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wish we could make other places great so people wouldn’t have to kill them selves trying to immigrate
Not with demographics as they are lol. They need these migrants or their economy is fucked. They’ll be like Japan with an an inverted age pyramid
[удалено]
With climate change accelerating immigration liberal democracy will decay into fascism...
Yup future is very worrying with the rise of fascism and authoritarism increasing. Current migration is tip of the iceberg to what we will see in a few decades time to climate change migration. The funny (well sad) part is the people who detest refugees/migrants are against any measure to reduce climate change as well.
Eu finally waking up. 2016 is 7 years ago.
The United States has this issue, too many people believe seeking Asylum means you can enter the country illegally.....you still need to go through the legal port of entry and process. Illegal is illegal....you could be Jesus Christ crossing border.....still an illegal immigrant.
> too many people believe seeking Asylum means you can enter the country illegally.... Well, that's exactly what US law says about the matter, like it or not: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 > Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (**whether or not at a designated port of arrival** and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Canada is trying to get to 100 million citizens, mostly via immigration. We have a long way to go so maybe two birds with one stone here.
The issue is integration. Alot of people who emigrate will head to an enclave filled with people from their original nation. The enclave allows them to operate as they would in their home country and that makes it obvious they hold different values which annoys the locals. As a fun example a lot of British people retired in Spain. They never learnt the language, insulted johnny foreigner in their own country and generally transposed some of the worst aspects of British culture. Immigration is fine, but the people who migrate need to learn and adapt to the society they live in. That means learning the language, building relationships with locals and accepting the host nations values. The UK tried an open door policy in the 00's and it built up a lot of resentment in the native population, it didn't help people complaining were immediately labelled as racist (some/many were, but it shut down discussion on the integration issues)
My family and I moved from Poland to the UK in 2003, and let me tell you, the rampant racism seen in kids my age (I was 7 turning 8 when we moved) made it sometimes incredibly hard to socialise/integrate. Half the kids hated me and spew shit like "go back to your own country, you Polish git" on the daily, so mental health ended up being a problem right from the start. Then again, I was shocked to see the difference in classmates between Poland and England. In one country, we were white as a sheet of paper, and in the other there were probably only like 50% of kids that were actually English. The rest were of African, Asian descent.
>As a fun example a lot of British people retired in Spain. They never learnt the language, insulted johnny foreigner in their own country and generally transposed some of the worst aspects of British culture. Same with Russian-speaking people in Lithuania, most of them can't speak/not willing to learn Lithuanian even living 20, 30 or more years in Lithuania.
[удалено]
But some of them barely or never speaking Lithuanian.
It’s failing miserably.
Are you referring to the century initiative affiliated with Trudeau?
... For the last few thousand years.
Day late dollar short
rape their lands of natural resources and complain when they go to “your” country
Well I mean if you're illegally there then yeah absolutely that makes sense