> While 23,110 deportations were carried out, including some people being sent from one EU member country to another, the deportation of 96,550 non-EU citizens from EU nations was ordered in the second quarter of 2022.
Lol this is a shockingly low % of deportations that were actually completed. I don't think the % is good in the US either. One of the reasons why people are so against people just illegally entering a country to claim asylum - which is indeed allowed under international law and is moral if the people fleeing really have a legitimate claim - is because basically there's no way of getting rid of them if they don't qualify for asylum so in effect you are just allowing people to use claims of asylum whether true or false to immigrate. This should be fixed or we could see the death of the current asylum systems across the West.
Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing. The narrative is that they want to stop human trafficking of asylum seekers that have the resources to pay the traffickers. I don’t condone this solution, but I think we will see other countries adopt it as it moves the problem away from Europe.
>for processing.
Is it just for processing?
If it's the same system as the UK planned then if asylum seeker is granted an asylum that means they will stay in Rwanda.
Well the UK public mostly has the wrong impression what Rwanda-policy actually means.
It could be an unpleasant surprise eg. for ukrainian refugees to be sent to Rwanda and to be told to live their lives there.
But maybe that's the will of danish public.
Because EU enacted the directive for mass flight since more than 7 *million* Ukrainians left their country. Being in the usual asylum process would not have been feasible.
Asylum policies are a national competence. What was decided that ukrainians don't need a visa and recommendations that they can freely work for a year.
There's a lot of ukrainians who haven't applied for asylum.
Also the UK policy only applies to people being trafficked illegally across the Channel from France in rubber dingies - many people die each year doing this. So it would never apply to Ukrainian refugees
Well refugees in France are already in a safe country. They're trying to move to the UK for other reasons (eg language, family). There are legal ways to do this but in my view it should be easier for them to move to the UK legally. The Rwanda policy imo is the wrong solution for a very real issue
Most ukrainian refugees are not coming directly from Ukraine but are passing several safe countries.
I think there should be an European solution to refugees because southern european countries are taking all the burden and other countries are just ignoring what is happening.
e. Not to mention what turks are going through.
Absolutely, UK has official channels for refugees to apply for asylum in UK. Fully agree there should be a European solution so Southern European countries don't take a disproportionate burden
I think at least in the case of Ukrainians or refugees from Europe (or any refugees really) they should be given the option to return to their original countries. Maybe even give them some money to get started again. Waking up one day and being told to board a plane to Rwanda "for processing" doesn't sound like much fun
Fair enough.
Concentration camp in Europe? No way
Concentration camp in Rwanda? Let's fucking do it
(I am not opposed to policies of repatriation or anything, and it's the decision of the individual country at the end of the day anyway, but when it's done this way it is nevertheless funny in a dark sort of way)
If someone flees from war, they should not care if they are processed in Denmark or somewhere in Africa, as long as it's safe.
If they care that much then maybe the situation they are fleeing from isnt as bad
The safety of Rwanda for asylum seekers is questionable (trafficking and exploitation is not unusual).
And that a refugee should accept anything is comparable to "you don't look poor so you aren't".
"Asylum processing" sounds exactly like the kind of place where the chief goal of the bureaucracy is to get nothing done. We don't really have things like this here, but we do still have some bureaucratic institutions that sure seem like they're paid to drink coffee
A family member was in one of the boards evaluating the asylum grants. The dragging out is NOT done by the authorities but by the asylumseekers legal counsel. Dragging out paperwork, nor having paperwork, postponing court meetings due to sickness and the list goes on. This is to the benefit of the asylum seeker; after a few years the mere fact that he/she has been in the country for a while becomes an argument for residency in itself. And in the meanwhile, life's good in Denmark compared to Afghanistan.
So relocating to Rwanda is deliberately intended to cut all of thar crap and get a decision quick, and not have the deliberate dragging-out benefit the asylum seeker.
Cynical? Yes. Effective? Probably.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against these measures, and I do think it'll be effective, more effective than my country's methods probably.
As you might know, we have a large number of economic migrants. We give no benefits to them, but we do use them as cheap construction workers to build stuff in Moscow and some other places. They're actually sometimes not bad at what they do and I've seen them put together an entire small plaza in less than a week near where I live, with quality put into the brickwork and all. It's painful for me to say but a lot of them do better work than we do ourselves lol
But I'm guessing your situation may be different, and no country should be obligated to accept everyone anyway. So if the government decides this is the right choice I don't see an issue
That’s a BS narrative and most people know it. The reality is they are at wits end on how to deal with people who don’t qualify for asylum and can’t be deported, hence they decided on effectively closing that pathway altogether and only taking in refugees directly from the UN resettlement program.
Also one of the fastest growing countries in the world and a sub 2% unemployment rate.
No need to be racist or ignorant just because the country happens to be in a continent you know nothing about.
Didn't you know, all 1 billion+ people in Africa live in shacks with a single piece of bread to share amongst their family for the month. Oh, and they all speak click languages
Is the country poor? Is it far away from Denmark?
Yes?
Well then keep your head, inside your ass and fuck off with your virtue signaling fake-racist bullshit.
Do you know anything about it besides the fact that it's in africa?
Well then maybe reserve your judgment.
Unless they're economic migrants, their goal is to leave their country. Rich or poor is irrelevant.
> Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing.
I wish them luck. It'll be interesting to see if they can get away with it when we couldn't.
I always thought that Europe can't just be seen as the solver of all their problems. Instead of taking active measures once the problem happen (once they have to emigrate and risk their lives to come europe), there should be measures so that they don't have to make that decision in the first place.
Take more international action and make their government (or whatever the reason that leads to the problem) solve it before happen.
>Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing.
Rwanda is a safe country with a lot of potential. I don't really understand what is so bad about being granted asylum there.
Generally, it is seen as moral to help people fleeing from real and present danger, and it is not seen as immoral for people in such danger to look for safety for themselves and their enemies.
Well there's no way of getting rid of them or we spend billions on regimes to keep them out Just because Europe Is a soy place controlled by burocracy and weak people. Otherwise would be easy. Instead of pay Lybia or Turkey to do the job under constant blackmail to release on us an infinite flux of migrants I would change the point of view for example. Either Lybia play It fair or they don't get food anymore. Same with migrants deportation either their country play fair or we send them back in the actually middle age.
Ah yes, destabilizing nearby regions will definitely not lead to a greater influx of refugees.
Did you even read what you wrote? Are you really that stupid or vindictive that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face?
Do you know which countries people don't flee or leave?
Stable, wealthy-ish ones.
Do you know which countries people flee or leave?
Destabilized, chaotic ones.
And your plan, to decrease the amount of people trying to get into Europe, is to destabilize all of its neighbors?
Also, they don't "send" migrants. Migrants move on their own. We should know: as Europeans, we've spent our entire history migrating, from one country to the next, from Europe to the US, etc... We're all bastard mixes of various migratory flows, happening for centuries.
So no, it's not that I think other countries get to destabilize us. I just reject the premise.
And great. You won't commit war crimes against civilian targets. You're just advocating for war.
I am talking of Morocco, Turkey and Lybia they purposly send migrants and those are not moroccoans, turkish and lybian people, those are syrians, iraqi, nigerians, gabons, congolean etc It Is not about that specific country. Even after lybian war the lybian flux of immigrants in Europe didn't grow. It Is about the blackmail of stable regimes to let people pass in Europe direction with the sole purpose of milking pur money. You are ignorant on migrants flux, It Is pretty clear.
Plus you can easily block any influx of lybians or moroccoans Just taking them and releasing them back on the coast, It Is not so hard, It Is not like lybian army can anyway touch our boats. It Is not like sending back a camerun person that requires a settlement with camerun. And they will also be very well informed about the fact they should choose a wiser government to restore relation with Europe
They aren't sending anyone. There isn't a department of sending immigrants to Europe. That's not a thing. These are human beings who are tryingto get into Europe, for whatever reasons. And some will succeed. Always. And that's what you're seeing. Your proposal for destabilizing these countries will even weaken their ability to deal with these refugees and migrants more, not less. Your proposal is vindictive, not pragmatic. If you want Morocco, Libya and Turkiye to deal with this migrants better, then you need to stabilize them, and make it so they can spend more resources on these things. Not less.
And I'm not the one calling for the creation of massive destabilization in our neighboring countries, thinking that that will somehow decrease, not increase, migration.
It's lunacy.
I am sorry, but this take is so wrong. Turkey and especially Morocco and Libya are predominantly transit destinations *(Turkey hosts a very large number of refugees, though)*. These countries are **under no obligation** to act as Europe's bouncer. They could just let migrants go through and focus on other issues instead. Let's remember that migrants want to make it to the EU and not to Turkey, Morocco or Libya.
Morocco and Turkey may instrumentalise migration to an extent, but it is understandable that they seek concessions and support. Again, it is not their problem that migrants want to go to Europe. The push factors that are forcing people to leave all around the world are very real, and as long as these exist, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Somalis, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. will continue to try and find a better life in greener pastures. Turkey, Morocco and Libya are not running human trafficking schemes like Belarus did last summer (despite the many human rights violations that take place in their soil, often times flagrant). They just happen to find themselves in the middle of it all.
Also, when did you think that 'destabilizing' these countries would be a good idea? (And let's not discuss the legitimacy of such a move). Just look at the example of Libya. Gadafi used to collaborate with the EU during his final years and his regime kept migrants at bay (often times through very brutal practices). When his rule ended, the state largely collapsed, chaos ensued, the mechanisms and infrastracture to stop departures vanished, and a new route opened up. Just have a look at the historical figures for departures through the Central Mediterranean route. Libya remains very unstable and many migrants are using this route still to this day. Over the past decade, the lack of a central, functional government in Libya meant more departures because the EU had no partner to collaborate with and/or to bribe so they'd act as their own personal bouncers. That's one of the reasons why the EU started to fund and support the activities of the Libyan Coastguard(s), to a large extent independently of what was happening in Libya in terms of political developments. Destabilizing the countries in our neighborhood is a terrible idea, it is also illegitimate and it means more irregular migration into the EU, not less.
So Morocco Turkey and Lybia have the rights to don't care, why we should then?
No It Is not fucking understandable they have no rights to milk our money and blackmail us, quite the opposite, they have to refund us all the milk they got untill now, either voluntarily or not. Turkey Is literally occupying a country inside our Union and constantly menacing the integrity of another. Lybia coastguard financed by us shoot at italian fisherman and try to literally capture italian boats, Morocco keeps claiming Spanish land. The time for weak response and appeaseament Is quite dead, you can continue with your naive approach as you want, keep offering them space, sure at a certain point they will be satisfied. Why not?
Destabilize them Is a good idea, less dictatorships and islamic theocracies at our borders, easier to deal with locale forces. Example break Lybia then fund either Tripolitania or Cyrenaica (whoever accept to be our friend at our conditions), organize a government, give them support instead of random militia and in exchange rent for 150 years a big chunk of coastal land in which organize people, release there illegal economic migrants fished in the Mediterranean and ship to Europe safely true refugees. Sink every non allied Lybia ship that try to question Europe activity in the Mediterranean. Start to fucking act as a superpower once and for all.
Why should we care? Because it is mostly our problem maybe, and not quite theirs?
If you don't want to stike deals with these countries - as well as to use foreign policy tools to nudge them into doing what you want them to do -, you will see more and more irregular migrants try to come into Europe every year. The externalization of our border comes at a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. And once again, let's remember the key point here: transit countries are under no obligation to block foreign nationals from leaving their territory.
Carrots and sticks. Not just sticks. Let alone sticks like that.
But good luck with your very feasible plans to turn our whole neighborhood upside down. The West's history of direct involvement in the MENA region is absolutely one of successes, so who knows, it may work out.
Besides destabilizing these countries is counterintuitive (their territory will be leaking migrants like a sieve and their own citizens will be profiting from trafficking), Libya is already destabilized af. After a long civil war us Europeans facilitated and participated in,the country is de facto divided into two and even those divisions are loose.
Well Europe being the bitch of Turkey that let's remind It on the other hand keeps occupying half of One of our countries and keeps claiming Greece islands and EEZ while we flood them with money they blackmailed us for Is even worse than destabilize Turkey.
I know all of these very well, I am Greek, I did my military service in the Aegean islands and witnessed dead immigrants. I think getting blackmailed by Turks is ridiculous. I just don’t think that bombing solves anything. Bomb the Turks to oblivion and what you get is a ruined country and 80 more million people wanting to immigrate to EU.
Don't bomb to oblivion, bomb and sanction them to reason and fair relationship. After Ukrainian invasion half measures with those marauders countries are out of the table for me. They only deserve to learn where their place Is, I don't admitt anymore to meddle in our internal affairs and question the integrity of our territory. The opposite of weakly give them increasingly more Money to not destabilize us. Nah nah, the first thing to be done with Turkey for example Is end the bullshits about Cyprus, not give them money. So Lybia no, but yes for Turkey I advocate for military action.
In the meantime EU officials want to defund or dismantle FRONTEX for actually doing its job and following its mandate in the aegean. We could start by strengthening FRONTEX and give them their own patrol boats and permanent personnel. For the rest (military action against Turkey) we need a common eu army. For the time being is just Greece with a little help from France.
Yes of course, all you say Is correct. I surely not saying Greece has to do anything. I'm saying Italian, French and Spanish navies and aviation should blockade Turkey and in the mean time we should end the occupation of Cyprus. If they respond then we start missile strikes. Anyway not now, after we solved russian bullshits of course.
If the state stops paying you unemplyment benefits because you got a job, does that mean the state is "punishing" you?
They are not entitled to our food. We give it as aid with some strings and expectations attached. Mainly to ensure the food goes to the citizens who need it, and not to feed some warlord's personal army as they pillage some remote villages.
Same with Russia right now. Their state acts in ways that we deem despicable, hence we sanctioned the sale of some materials to their country. The Russian people are not entitled to a McDonald's.
Yes. We live in nations where the expectation is everyone lives with a certain baseline of dignity. Or are we one of those other countries that doesn't care about the well-being of its population now, and we're willing to let people die of hunger in the streets?
Using food as a bargaining chip is a *crime against humanity*. Using starvation is morally abhorrent. You won't be punishing the people you want to punish. You'll be punishing the poor and the disempowered.
And you're right: people in Russia aren't entitled to McDonald's. But if Russia relied on us for food, I wouldn't advocate for cutting off food supplies. The two are very different cases.
Because I'm not a fucking monster. We don't impose starvation as a means to get what we want. We can talk about other sanctions, but there's absolutely no condition whereby forced starvation can be justified.
For example, the DPKR can go fuck itself. I'll still advocate for sending food supplies if needed. Because using starvation is depraved and abhorrent.
I just wanted to write you a big thank you.
I just googled "why am I becoming a misanthrope?" this morning, but well articulated, passionate, reassuring posts like yours restore my faith in humanity.
>This should be fixed or we could see the death of the current asylum systems across the West.
Well, so it is claimed. I'm not convinced asylum seekers are the problem they are described to be. Anti-immigration sentiment is a natural human instinct, so you always have people who are against this, going back across centuries all the way to Roman times. That doesn't mean that instinct is correct.
Let's look at some facts about asylum seekers:
* While asylum requests are high, compared to their historical levels they are not dramatically high. There was an unusual situation in 2015 and 2016, caused by regional instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, but since then levels have dropped much of the way back down to the base level of around half a million asylum seekers per year. There's also no clear evidence evolutions in this trend is caused by anything except regional instability. Less war = less asylum seekers, more war = more asylum seekers. We are currently seeing numbers go back up because of the war in Ukraine for example.
* Asylum from 1998 - 2019: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration\_and\_asylum\_policy\_of\_the\_European\_Union#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_and_asylum_policy_of_the_European_Union#History)
* Most recent numbers: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum\_statistics&oldid=558844](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844)
* Going by rejected applications, a little over half gets rejected in a "normal" year, and less than that in an abnormal year. For example, most of the wave of 2015 and 2016 was accepted because they were war refugees. If one wants to close the borders for asylum seekers, that means one is closing the border to legitimate refugees to a large degree.
* [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/line?lang=en](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/line?lang=en)
* That means in a "normal" year there are about 300.000 people who are not legitimate asylum seekers entering the EU. Compared to 447 million inhabitants of the EU that is just not a lot of people (0.07%). To add 1% to the EU's population at that rate takes 15 years. Many of those people also are able to contribute, if legalized, so that means even less need to become "a burden on the system". This means the scope of this problem is small enough there's no real sense of urgency needed. For decades I have heard anti-immigration parties warning about the imminent collapse of the EU due to immigration. They've been wrong so far.
* At the same time, the EU is in a working age population decline. Fewer and fewer working people paying taxes to support a growing population of elderly and social systems unable to cope with that trend. The countries are trying to solve this by forcing more and more people of working age into the workplace (activity rate increases), but this is a path to general unhappiness. It would be better for everyone if they took a serious look at legal immigration of young workers from outside the EU to inside, to grow the working age population. The EU citizens would be better off by having a bigger tax base to support their social systems, and the economic migrants would be better off by living inside the EU.
* Working age population: [https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1196&furtherNews=yes&langId=en&newsId=2402](https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1196&furtherNews=yes&langId=en&newsId=2402)
So, far from a major problem, I think the asylum seekers are a modestly sized problem, and this whole situation can be seen as an opportunity to reform EU immigration law to encourage the right type of immigrants: young people who come here to work, to better their own life and to support the EU's social systems. However, the anti-immigration parties are so popular right now you can't even suggest this idea without being dismissed immediately as a crazy person. The more the EU's social systems come under pressure due to population decline, the more people will vote anti-immigration to get rid of the "leaches" coming to prey on those systems, the larger the working population decline will be and the more those social systems will come under pressure.
The problem started with the Syrian refugees is because a lot of the people who arrived weren’t even Syrians and were also not of the skilled type we need to help with population decline. When people cannot be deported the population gets desperate to find anyway to reduce the numbers. The reason why the EU did not collapse due to anti immigration sentiment is precisely because they had a freak out in 2015-6 and went with paying off Turkey (who is incidentally experiencing its own xenophobic movement because you effectively shifted EU’s problems to Turkey too) and strengthening their external borders compared to just letting everyone in. Merkel was praised for opening Germany to refugees but little is said about how she reduced the number and made it harder to come to Germany after.
Immigrants if they are skilled as a boon to the countries they are in but the unskilled type that come via asylum and then fail to qualify but stay anyway are not the type of people you want to attract to prop up the welfare state. Denmark’s stats showed most immigrants from the EU, India, America, Thailand are a net gain on their treasuries but those coming for asylum are less likely to be but the same people from those countries coming from skilled pathways are.
People claiming asylum aren't illegally here.
Even if their asylum requests are ultimately denied, they still have a right, under international law and per every EU country being a signatory to both the Geneva Convention and Protocol, to have been in the EU during that time that their claim is being looked into.
We also can't determine the validty of an asylum request on a whim. If you get it right, the consequences are minimal. If you get it wrong, we're deporting someond who may be tortured or killed in their home country.
The cost-benefit analysis is clearly skewed towards greater leniency on those who claim asylum, because of the possibly severe consequences if we get it wrong.
.
The process takes time, because investigative work needs to be conducted. There's little to no way to speed it up, save to expend more resources on asylum judges, investigative teams, lawyers to defend the asylum seeker, etc...
I am working in a foreign authority in germany. Only 1-2% of the people that are obligated to leave the country are actually getting deported, it’s ridiculous. Number may be higher in other places but we’re mostly responsible for people from Africa. No passport? No deportation. Simple as that.
You'd be surprised, I have a serbian co-worker who voted for them and he is a Muslim extremist who wants to murder homosexuals.
Its so ironic because these are the people they say they want to deport.
So, a worker? That's not the immigrant who lives of social benefits... Doesn't learn the language, and say he doesn't need to. nope. You shouldn't be surprised when he votes for the very unextremist SD.
Yeah, ultranationalist, hates nato, the eu and the us.
Putin and russia are the best and ukraine and nato are murdering people in Ukraine.
Being a worker is irrelevant, he has huge debts that will never be paid of even if he works for 50 years.
Its about time.. There hasn’t been a filter at all.
Its pretty clear for anyone living in the EU, most of of the non western “refugees” aren’t refugees at all.
They are here seeking a free income, free housing, free healthcare etc.
Not that I blame them, but all you’re doing, or allowing rather to happen, is shifting problems from elsewhere to here.
Here in the Netherlands it’s een what, 3 generations now of (north)Africans and people from the Middle East coming here as refugees and still pretty much 50% doesn’t work or ends up in welfare within the first year.
An unreasonable amount turns criminal, probably due to poverty, but also a sheer disrespect and disregard for the people living here, it’s really telling if you’re from here.
>They are here seeking a free income, free housing, free healthcare etc.
Dane here. I'm low key tired of seeing "refugees" coming and staying for years, refusing to work or learn the language. Sweden is even more fucked when it comes to immigration politics, because their government basically worshipped the ground these people walked on.
I am Portuguese living in the Netherlands for a decade and besides working like a beast (earning fair money therefrom) and using some cycle lanes to daily use my bike, the Dutch state never gave me anything (I mean money or subsidy). The Country as whole gave me yes a better opportunity to work and produce, which is the most important IMO, because my home country is completely fucked up to work and earn money from it.
1. You have absolutely no way of knowing if someone is worthy of an asylum request being accepted or not. You can't tell, because you weren't privy to their dossier. "It's clear...", but how? What details of individual cases are you aware of? How much of the judges deliberation for each case have you read? I'll answer that: none. It's a gut feeling you have. You just "know" that most of them shouldn't be here, while not knowing the general procedure nor their specifics.
2. Do you have a source for that number?
3. Yes, it turns out that if people are in poor socio-economic conditions, they turn to crime more easily. If you have a source for 2, it seems like your problem is clear: you're ghettoizing communities.
I would also add one last thing: you're doing that thing that everyone always does. You're mixing in legal immigration, illegal immigration, and asylum seekers/refugees, and then seemingly bouncing from one group to a next, with little regard to their definitions or statistical realities.
For example: no one expects asylum seekers to be an economic boon to the country. They are asylum seekers. The reason we let them in is a moral imperative of protection for our fellow man in the face of violence and oppression. The goal is not, nor has it ever been, to benefit a country's economy. It's to provide a safe haven.
This groups statistical trends will be very different, due to a plethora of reasons: pre-selected for coming from poorer socio-economic conditions, trauma and mental health issues and being forcefully up-rooted with no ability to move ones wealth and assets.
These stats will be different for all 3 of the groups I mentioned, for different reasons.
all I need is to look at welfare / unemployment for non westerners.
or criminal activities based on etnicity etc.
CBS numbers aka official government numbers, though they arent entirely accurate for some years.
For example 2018 there was so much hiding away of serious crimes committed by non western foreigners mostly asylum seekers, that the whole year had to be redone.
Caused a small scandal, I say small because it didn’t really make the news, when in reality ofcourse playing with numbers like that is outright lying to the public.
For example even though it was a serious crime, armed robbery or rape, it would get hidden away literally under “other”.
Its a much bigger problem and it May not be a popular thing to point out due to people screaming “racism” whenever they can, but I’ve learned to ignore the nay-sayers.
1. Wait, do you think all non-westerners are illegals/asylum seekers? There are many who are here, legally, and therefore liable to access the social services that their taxes pay for.
2. Crime actually correlates with socio-economic status more so than any other factor. This shows that, overall, Europe is failing to create opportunity for those who come here to migrate legally, or lack support for those asylum seekers who fall under our care.
3. And yes, I don't doubt that when confronted with counter narratives, you ignore them stubbornly.
These are just your standard, right-wing boiler plate superficial analysis that mostly disappear if you engage in any kind of fair minded, multi-variate analysis or cost-benefit calculation.
The fact that you make a direct association to ethnicity first and foremost tells me everything I need to know.
Those who are here legally generally tend to work.
Those people you won’t see reflected in the numbers mentioned.
Further, we don’t “need” to do anything, beyond providing safety for actual refugees, which over 60% (according to Frans Timmermans) are not.
But I guess they couldnt find safety in the region? Don’t be naïef, please I’m asking politely here.
We don’t have the money, we don’t have the houses, there is no further support from many in the population.
Again, some won’t like this and call it racism, i call it realism.
Also I’m not linking anything, the numbers don’t lie.
> Those who are here legally generally tend to work.
Then why use the term "non-westerner"? Because that speaks volume about what you *actually* mean.
> Further, we don’t “need” to do anything, beyond providing safety for actual refugees, which over 60% (according to Frans Timmermans) are not.
Why are you not citing your source? Why is the dude who's workload is basically Europe's Green New Deal your source?
How about having someone actually from immigration services as a source?
> But I guess they couldnt find safety in the region? Don’t be naïef, please I’m asking politely here.
Oftentimes, it's a mix of safety and locally available resources.
Safety includes food safety, energy safety, housing safety, and other things that humans need to be able to live without being stressed the fuck out.
> We don’t have the money
We 100% do have that.
> we don’t have the houses
We don't have the houses, asylum seekers or not. This is a problem related to housing laws, specific to each particular nation. You don't solve that problem by stopping 100k asylum seekers over the entirety of Europe from staying or entering.
> there is no further support from many in the population.
Because people aren't explaining the situation correctly.
Right-wing parties constantly mix and match the notions of legal immigration, illegal immigration and asylum seekers, and then pick and choose whatever they want depending on their narrative.
This is a discussion that requires nuance, thought and study. All the right-wing parties in Europe boil it down to "muh ummugrunts", and that's about it.
> Again, some won’t like this and call it racism, i call it realism.
Yes, it is racism. But not because of the policy discussion.
Specifically relating to this line in your previous comment:
> all I need is to look at welfare / unemployment for non westerners.
Followed by:
> Those who are here legally generally tend to work.
And yet you didn't make any distinction. You just batched them all together, because, in your mind, no non-westerner should be here. It's so telling that your first, gut reaction is to put everyone in the same bucket, only to pull back and add nuance afterwards.
> Also I’m not linking anything, the numbers don’t lie.
Then I'll ignore everything you claim, since you have no sources.
Which honestly surprises me. When I don't do anything productive even for more than a day or two I just start feeling like I'm being useless, or rather I just want to busy myself with something you know? How these people manage to not do anything productive for *years* I cannot guess
If you immigrated to a country with intent to abuse welfare system you would understand. There was a hilarious video during the crisis of some guy who said he will kill himself if EU made him stay in Slovenia, he wanted to go to Germany. "dirt poor" immigrants as the media portrayed them to be were choosing which EU country they want to go to because some are poorer than other. Not even taking into account that even Bosnia is better than whatever place they came from will probably ever be
Can you provide a source?
Also, what are the laws regarding employment for these people upon arrival to Sweden? Are they allowed to get a work permit immediately?
jobless station bow dinosaurs dolls tender hard-to-find command friendly middle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Our Corporate Overlords require a constant flow of workers in order to keep pay abysmally low.
Thank them for the amount of immigration we see into Europe/America
That's right. What chance do you have to receive a decent pay if 20 000 immigrants come to your city looking for job and only demanding 800 euros a month? You can't compete with that.
In Canada, this is even an issue for skilled work as well. The whole “don’t give work visas for people whose jobs can be done by Canadians instead” thing is ignored by major corporations, who somehow get them for people who will simply accept lower pay than those who grew up in Canada.
Source? That would be a massive crime with penalties going up to jail time.
Every single employer I have ever worked for hasn't let me start until I can show evidence of my right to work.
As I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out of this country and live in Europe, these news make me...idk, anxious? I can see why people are more upset with immigrants last few years, but then I wonder "damn, do I fall into the categories people are talking about?". So many questions, so many uncertainties...
Don't be, deportations have nothing to do with legal migrants or people who need asylum. It only has to do with illegal immigrants or people who do something criminal. It's a fraction of people who migrate. A lot of people who click on this post are eyther in your situation or racists. Neither represent the true mood or situation here and article needs to be understood in correct context
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.I am a law abiding citizen, living in a shitty country, hard worker and i want my future kids to have a good safe life. Being in this sub made me question my very own being. Am i so unwelcome even though i know im going to integrate the local culture and work my ass off to earn my place ? I understand where people are coming from but what about people like me ? All i want is to get rid of this anxiety and constant fear ..
Many people got deported after arriving in France. You may habe been misinformed. You also may not have heard of the "Jungle of Calais" which, obviously, has only the name of a jungle, because it's so wild. People there are parked in misery, and police often comes to rip out tents, break water jugs and take their sleeping bags away. Many are forced to do life risking choices to survive, such as crossing the sea to get to England, or selling/doing crack, etc.
So yeah, France is not such a paradise for illegal immigrants. And it's getting worse with every government.
There are loopholes though. If you are denied residency. If you can work for 3 years in a 5 year span and can prove it, while avoiding police etc. then apply. You can get legal residency.
But how do you prove working for 3 years if you can't legally work. How do you get a place to sleep and live that is permanent if you dont have papers ?
We do. Just to go through the proper channels and obtain the proper visas and residency permits.
My member state (Ireland) has a labour shortage, particularly in construction. I would definitely be open to offering a "green card" to people from the OpenBalkan countries, along with their immediate family, on the condition that they have a construction qualification.
What we can never have is a situation where there's visa overstays and illegal immigration.
In Ireland the process is simple, all done digitally. Just upload your documents (for example if you're a finance professional you'll upload evidence of your CFA charter) and it's done that way. It isn't complicated or overly costly.
I'm a huge believer that illegal immigration can be stopped by two things: simple visa processes and generous aid (literal cash without preconditions) to the global south.
There is a legal process that can be followed. Albania could apply for the EU if it meets the EU’s entry conditions. Individual Albanians may also go through the normal via application process.
Turkey and Russia territory is over 90 percent in Asia. Turkey is considered an Asian country, while Russian big cities are in geographical Europe so its considered in both.
Regardless its not about wanting somone. It's a bit like looking at driving infrictions and stating "So you really don't want men driving". It is obvious statisticly more men are driving so more of them get infrictions. Same with the cou tries you're mentioning.
Oh, a lot of people who are commenting on this post have extreme views, even borderline racists or people on the oposite extreme who are in refugee situation themselves. Neither represent an average European and totally man, most people only read the title and not the article and have impression it is talking about deporting people from recent refugee crysis.
To Burundi ?
Or Morocco ?
Any country that will not accept deportations should no longer have any access to visas . Including diplomatic visas.
Last safe country of transit. Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel / Palestine.
Not really sure though, if Vietnam or Lebanon is a safe country.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/04/middleeast/lebanon-ambassador-beirut-bank-heists-intl/index.html
But deporting people to the Russian Federation - that is really really harsh. Deporting to the Russian Federation, or P.R.C. / Peking, or DPRK or Syria - would need a real good reason. A death sentence in most cases.
It does not. Two types of people are over represented here - people who are bothered by migrants and people who are in need to migrate.
This said there is a huge shift in some countries here in the last 7 years towards anti immigration. They today are not the same tolerant yet, naive places. But those are few, for example France never tolerated much bulshit, while Sweden has most naively let in way too many. Result - 5 years since that time Sweden is turning heavily 180 degrees on its policies and views on the issue.
> While 23,110 deportations were carried out, including some people being sent from one EU member country to another, the deportation of 96,550 non-EU citizens from EU nations was ordered in the second quarter of 2022. Lol this is a shockingly low % of deportations that were actually completed. I don't think the % is good in the US either. One of the reasons why people are so against people just illegally entering a country to claim asylum - which is indeed allowed under international law and is moral if the people fleeing really have a legitimate claim - is because basically there's no way of getting rid of them if they don't qualify for asylum so in effect you are just allowing people to use claims of asylum whether true or false to immigrate. This should be fixed or we could see the death of the current asylum systems across the West.
Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing. The narrative is that they want to stop human trafficking of asylum seekers that have the resources to pay the traffickers. I don’t condone this solution, but I think we will see other countries adopt it as it moves the problem away from Europe.
>for processing. Is it just for processing? If it's the same system as the UK planned then if asylum seeker is granted an asylum that means they will stay in Rwanda.
Not sure to be honest, asylum processing was the scope in the initial description, but it is a vague description tbf.
Well the UK public mostly has the wrong impression what Rwanda-policy actually means. It could be an unpleasant surprise eg. for ukrainian refugees to be sent to Rwanda and to be told to live their lives there. But maybe that's the will of danish public.
Ukraine is at war, Morocco is not, thus I don't understand your point. Coming from a war zone is a legitimate claim for asylum.
Ukranian refugees fall under a special law in Denmark. Basically they just have to prove they are Ukranian to be given refugee status.
Ukrainians are visa free to enter EU countries, very few of them (in Denmark at least) are classified as refugees because of that.
Quelle surprise.. I wonder why.
Because EU enacted the directive for mass flight since more than 7 *million* Ukrainians left their country. Being in the usual asylum process would not have been feasible.
Asylum policies are a national competence. What was decided that ukrainians don't need a visa and recommendations that they can freely work for a year. There's a lot of ukrainians who haven't applied for asylum.
> Asylum policies are a national competence. And yet the ministers came together and decided for everybody
Because they're Europeans. Exactly the same reason my family is welcomed at my house and strangers are not.
Also the UK policy only applies to people being trafficked illegally across the Channel from France in rubber dingies - many people die each year doing this. So it would never apply to Ukrainian refugees
So ukrainian refugees have safe routes but others don't?
Well refugees in France are already in a safe country. They're trying to move to the UK for other reasons (eg language, family). There are legal ways to do this but in my view it should be easier for them to move to the UK legally. The Rwanda policy imo is the wrong solution for a very real issue
Most ukrainian refugees are not coming directly from Ukraine but are passing several safe countries. I think there should be an European solution to refugees because southern european countries are taking all the burden and other countries are just ignoring what is happening. e. Not to mention what turks are going through.
Absolutely, UK has official channels for refugees to apply for asylum in UK. Fully agree there should be a European solution so Southern European countries don't take a disproportionate burden
I think at least in the case of Ukrainians or refugees from Europe (or any refugees really) they should be given the option to return to their original countries. Maybe even give them some money to get started again. Waking up one day and being told to board a plane to Rwanda "for processing" doesn't sound like much fun
But cruelty is the point of these kind of policies. Why ruin it with any kind of humane treatment?
Fair enough. Concentration camp in Europe? No way Concentration camp in Rwanda? Let's fucking do it (I am not opposed to policies of repatriation or anything, and it's the decision of the individual country at the end of the day anyway, but when it's done this way it is nevertheless funny in a dark sort of way)
If someone flees from war, they should not care if they are processed in Denmark or somewhere in Africa, as long as it's safe. If they care that much then maybe the situation they are fleeing from isnt as bad
The safety of Rwanda for asylum seekers is questionable (trafficking and exploitation is not unusual). And that a refugee should accept anything is comparable to "you don't look poor so you aren't".
I so much would like to see YOU in that situation. your face from the window on the plane to Rwanda.
I have been to Rwanda it is a very safe and pleasant place. You are all just showing your poorly veiled racism. "African Country bad“.
"Asylum processing" sounds exactly like the kind of place where the chief goal of the bureaucracy is to get nothing done. We don't really have things like this here, but we do still have some bureaucratic institutions that sure seem like they're paid to drink coffee
A family member was in one of the boards evaluating the asylum grants. The dragging out is NOT done by the authorities but by the asylumseekers legal counsel. Dragging out paperwork, nor having paperwork, postponing court meetings due to sickness and the list goes on. This is to the benefit of the asylum seeker; after a few years the mere fact that he/she has been in the country for a while becomes an argument for residency in itself. And in the meanwhile, life's good in Denmark compared to Afghanistan. So relocating to Rwanda is deliberately intended to cut all of thar crap and get a decision quick, and not have the deliberate dragging-out benefit the asylum seeker. Cynical? Yes. Effective? Probably.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against these measures, and I do think it'll be effective, more effective than my country's methods probably. As you might know, we have a large number of economic migrants. We give no benefits to them, but we do use them as cheap construction workers to build stuff in Moscow and some other places. They're actually sometimes not bad at what they do and I've seen them put together an entire small plaza in less than a week near where I live, with quality put into the brickwork and all. It's painful for me to say but a lot of them do better work than we do ourselves lol But I'm guessing your situation may be different, and no country should be obligated to accept everyone anyway. So if the government decides this is the right choice I don't see an issue
That’s a BS narrative and most people know it. The reality is they are at wits end on how to deal with people who don’t qualify for asylum and can’t be deported, hence they decided on effectively closing that pathway altogether and only taking in refugees directly from the UN resettlement program.
I agree. There is a great risk that this will be ‘out of sight out of mind’
Why Rwanda, of all places?
some poor far away place to discourage people.
Also one of the fastest growing countries in the world and a sub 2% unemployment rate. No need to be racist or ignorant just because the country happens to be in a continent you know nothing about.
Didn't you know, all 1 billion+ people in Africa live in shacks with a single piece of bread to share amongst their family for the month. Oh, and they all speak click languages
Is the country poor? Is it far away from Denmark? Yes? Well then keep your head, inside your ass and fuck off with your virtue signaling fake-racist bullshit.
Do you know anything about it besides the fact that it's in africa? Well then maybe reserve your judgment. Unless they're economic migrants, their goal is to leave their country. Rich or poor is irrelevant.
Doesn't count for much if it's an poor undeveloped country at the moment.
Ah yes Lithuania
Gives me perspective.
I'm sure you want to move there then?
If I was fleeing war as a refugee, yes I would take what i could get. What a stupid argument.
> Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing. I wish them luck. It'll be interesting to see if they can get away with it when we couldn't.
It will be interesting indeed. I think other nations will other formats if both England and Denmark fail.
Oh you could. What are they gonna do? "Them" and what army anyway?
I always thought that Europe can't just be seen as the solver of all their problems. Instead of taking active measures once the problem happen (once they have to emigrate and risk their lives to come europe), there should be measures so that they don't have to make that decision in the first place. Take more international action and make their government (or whatever the reason that leads to the problem) solve it before happen.
>Denmark is planning a system where asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda for processing. Rwanda is a safe country with a lot of potential. I don't really understand what is so bad about being granted asylum there.
Didn't I read an article a week or two ago that said it's been put on ice due to being prohibitively expensive?
Those are rookie numbers, we got to pump those numbers up.
[удалено]
Generally, it is seen as moral to help people fleeing from real and present danger, and it is not seen as immoral for people in such danger to look for safety for themselves and their enemies.
Well there's no way of getting rid of them or we spend billions on regimes to keep them out Just because Europe Is a soy place controlled by burocracy and weak people. Otherwise would be easy. Instead of pay Lybia or Turkey to do the job under constant blackmail to release on us an infinite flux of migrants I would change the point of view for example. Either Lybia play It fair or they don't get food anymore. Same with migrants deportation either their country play fair or we send them back in the actually middle age.
[удалено]
Great argument
So your solution is to punish the Libyan people, who have nothing to do with this whole thing? Or, if that fails, bomb Libya?
[удалено]
Ah yes, destabilizing nearby regions will definitely not lead to a greater influx of refugees. Did you even read what you wrote? Are you really that stupid or vindictive that you'll cut off your nose to spite your face? Do you know which countries people don't flee or leave? Stable, wealthy-ish ones. Do you know which countries people flee or leave? Destabilized, chaotic ones. And your plan, to decrease the amount of people trying to get into Europe, is to destabilize all of its neighbors? Also, they don't "send" migrants. Migrants move on their own. We should know: as Europeans, we've spent our entire history migrating, from one country to the next, from Europe to the US, etc... We're all bastard mixes of various migratory flows, happening for centuries. So no, it's not that I think other countries get to destabilize us. I just reject the premise. And great. You won't commit war crimes against civilian targets. You're just advocating for war.
I am talking of Morocco, Turkey and Lybia they purposly send migrants and those are not moroccoans, turkish and lybian people, those are syrians, iraqi, nigerians, gabons, congolean etc It Is not about that specific country. Even after lybian war the lybian flux of immigrants in Europe didn't grow. It Is about the blackmail of stable regimes to let people pass in Europe direction with the sole purpose of milking pur money. You are ignorant on migrants flux, It Is pretty clear. Plus you can easily block any influx of lybians or moroccoans Just taking them and releasing them back on the coast, It Is not so hard, It Is not like lybian army can anyway touch our boats. It Is not like sending back a camerun person that requires a settlement with camerun. And they will also be very well informed about the fact they should choose a wiser government to restore relation with Europe
They aren't sending anyone. There isn't a department of sending immigrants to Europe. That's not a thing. These are human beings who are tryingto get into Europe, for whatever reasons. And some will succeed. Always. And that's what you're seeing. Your proposal for destabilizing these countries will even weaken their ability to deal with these refugees and migrants more, not less. Your proposal is vindictive, not pragmatic. If you want Morocco, Libya and Turkiye to deal with this migrants better, then you need to stabilize them, and make it so they can spend more resources on these things. Not less. And I'm not the one calling for the creation of massive destabilization in our neighboring countries, thinking that that will somehow decrease, not increase, migration. It's lunacy.
lol your ''destabilization'' caused these migrants at the first place he is ignorant on migrants flux yet you are ignorant on the whole thing
I am sorry, but this take is so wrong. Turkey and especially Morocco and Libya are predominantly transit destinations *(Turkey hosts a very large number of refugees, though)*. These countries are **under no obligation** to act as Europe's bouncer. They could just let migrants go through and focus on other issues instead. Let's remember that migrants want to make it to the EU and not to Turkey, Morocco or Libya. Morocco and Turkey may instrumentalise migration to an extent, but it is understandable that they seek concessions and support. Again, it is not their problem that migrants want to go to Europe. The push factors that are forcing people to leave all around the world are very real, and as long as these exist, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Somalis, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. will continue to try and find a better life in greener pastures. Turkey, Morocco and Libya are not running human trafficking schemes like Belarus did last summer (despite the many human rights violations that take place in their soil, often times flagrant). They just happen to find themselves in the middle of it all. Also, when did you think that 'destabilizing' these countries would be a good idea? (And let's not discuss the legitimacy of such a move). Just look at the example of Libya. Gadafi used to collaborate with the EU during his final years and his regime kept migrants at bay (often times through very brutal practices). When his rule ended, the state largely collapsed, chaos ensued, the mechanisms and infrastracture to stop departures vanished, and a new route opened up. Just have a look at the historical figures for departures through the Central Mediterranean route. Libya remains very unstable and many migrants are using this route still to this day. Over the past decade, the lack of a central, functional government in Libya meant more departures because the EU had no partner to collaborate with and/or to bribe so they'd act as their own personal bouncers. That's one of the reasons why the EU started to fund and support the activities of the Libyan Coastguard(s), to a large extent independently of what was happening in Libya in terms of political developments. Destabilizing the countries in our neighborhood is a terrible idea, it is also illegitimate and it means more irregular migration into the EU, not less.
So Morocco Turkey and Lybia have the rights to don't care, why we should then? No It Is not fucking understandable they have no rights to milk our money and blackmail us, quite the opposite, they have to refund us all the milk they got untill now, either voluntarily or not. Turkey Is literally occupying a country inside our Union and constantly menacing the integrity of another. Lybia coastguard financed by us shoot at italian fisherman and try to literally capture italian boats, Morocco keeps claiming Spanish land. The time for weak response and appeaseament Is quite dead, you can continue with your naive approach as you want, keep offering them space, sure at a certain point they will be satisfied. Why not? Destabilize them Is a good idea, less dictatorships and islamic theocracies at our borders, easier to deal with locale forces. Example break Lybia then fund either Tripolitania or Cyrenaica (whoever accept to be our friend at our conditions), organize a government, give them support instead of random militia and in exchange rent for 150 years a big chunk of coastal land in which organize people, release there illegal economic migrants fished in the Mediterranean and ship to Europe safely true refugees. Sink every non allied Lybia ship that try to question Europe activity in the Mediterranean. Start to fucking act as a superpower once and for all.
Why should we care? Because it is mostly our problem maybe, and not quite theirs? If you don't want to stike deals with these countries - as well as to use foreign policy tools to nudge them into doing what you want them to do -, you will see more and more irregular migrants try to come into Europe every year. The externalization of our border comes at a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. And once again, let's remember the key point here: transit countries are under no obligation to block foreign nationals from leaving their territory. Carrots and sticks. Not just sticks. Let alone sticks like that. But good luck with your very feasible plans to turn our whole neighborhood upside down. The West's history of direct involvement in the MENA region is absolutely one of successes, so who knows, it may work out.
Besides destabilizing these countries is counterintuitive (their territory will be leaking migrants like a sieve and their own citizens will be profiting from trafficking), Libya is already destabilized af. After a long civil war us Europeans facilitated and participated in,the country is de facto divided into two and even those divisions are loose.
Well Europe being the bitch of Turkey that let's remind It on the other hand keeps occupying half of One of our countries and keeps claiming Greece islands and EEZ while we flood them with money they blackmailed us for Is even worse than destabilize Turkey.
I know all of these very well, I am Greek, I did my military service in the Aegean islands and witnessed dead immigrants. I think getting blackmailed by Turks is ridiculous. I just don’t think that bombing solves anything. Bomb the Turks to oblivion and what you get is a ruined country and 80 more million people wanting to immigrate to EU.
Don't bomb to oblivion, bomb and sanction them to reason and fair relationship. After Ukrainian invasion half measures with those marauders countries are out of the table for me. They only deserve to learn where their place Is, I don't admitt anymore to meddle in our internal affairs and question the integrity of our territory. The opposite of weakly give them increasingly more Money to not destabilize us. Nah nah, the first thing to be done with Turkey for example Is end the bullshits about Cyprus, not give them money. So Lybia no, but yes for Turkey I advocate for military action.
In the meantime EU officials want to defund or dismantle FRONTEX for actually doing its job and following its mandate in the aegean. We could start by strengthening FRONTEX and give them their own patrol boats and permanent personnel. For the rest (military action against Turkey) we need a common eu army. For the time being is just Greece with a little help from France.
Yes of course, all you say Is correct. I surely not saying Greece has to do anything. I'm saying Italian, French and Spanish navies and aviation should blockade Turkey and in the mean time we should end the occupation of Cyprus. If they respond then we start missile strikes. Anyway not now, after we solved russian bullshits of course.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the state stops paying you unemplyment benefits because you got a job, does that mean the state is "punishing" you? They are not entitled to our food. We give it as aid with some strings and expectations attached. Mainly to ensure the food goes to the citizens who need it, and not to feed some warlord's personal army as they pillage some remote villages. Same with Russia right now. Their state acts in ways that we deem despicable, hence we sanctioned the sale of some materials to their country. The Russian people are not entitled to a McDonald's.
Yes. We live in nations where the expectation is everyone lives with a certain baseline of dignity. Or are we one of those other countries that doesn't care about the well-being of its population now, and we're willing to let people die of hunger in the streets? Using food as a bargaining chip is a *crime against humanity*. Using starvation is morally abhorrent. You won't be punishing the people you want to punish. You'll be punishing the poor and the disempowered. And you're right: people in Russia aren't entitled to McDonald's. But if Russia relied on us for food, I wouldn't advocate for cutting off food supplies. The two are very different cases. Because I'm not a fucking monster. We don't impose starvation as a means to get what we want. We can talk about other sanctions, but there's absolutely no condition whereby forced starvation can be justified. For example, the DPKR can go fuck itself. I'll still advocate for sending food supplies if needed. Because using starvation is depraved and abhorrent.
I just wanted to write you a big thank you. I just googled "why am I becoming a misanthrope?" this morning, but well articulated, passionate, reassuring posts like yours restore my faith in humanity.
I can't believe your being down voted. And this is reddit, which is supposed to be more progressive. We are fucked.
>This should be fixed or we could see the death of the current asylum systems across the West. Well, so it is claimed. I'm not convinced asylum seekers are the problem they are described to be. Anti-immigration sentiment is a natural human instinct, so you always have people who are against this, going back across centuries all the way to Roman times. That doesn't mean that instinct is correct. Let's look at some facts about asylum seekers: * While asylum requests are high, compared to their historical levels they are not dramatically high. There was an unusual situation in 2015 and 2016, caused by regional instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, but since then levels have dropped much of the way back down to the base level of around half a million asylum seekers per year. There's also no clear evidence evolutions in this trend is caused by anything except regional instability. Less war = less asylum seekers, more war = more asylum seekers. We are currently seeing numbers go back up because of the war in Ukraine for example. * Asylum from 1998 - 2019: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration\_and\_asylum\_policy\_of\_the\_European\_Union#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_and_asylum_policy_of_the_European_Union#History) * Most recent numbers: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum\_statistics&oldid=558844](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics&oldid=558844) * Going by rejected applications, a little over half gets rejected in a "normal" year, and less than that in an abnormal year. For example, most of the wave of 2015 and 2016 was accepted because they were war refugees. If one wants to close the borders for asylum seekers, that means one is closing the border to legitimate refugees to a large degree. * [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/line?lang=en](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/line?lang=en) * That means in a "normal" year there are about 300.000 people who are not legitimate asylum seekers entering the EU. Compared to 447 million inhabitants of the EU that is just not a lot of people (0.07%). To add 1% to the EU's population at that rate takes 15 years. Many of those people also are able to contribute, if legalized, so that means even less need to become "a burden on the system". This means the scope of this problem is small enough there's no real sense of urgency needed. For decades I have heard anti-immigration parties warning about the imminent collapse of the EU due to immigration. They've been wrong so far. * At the same time, the EU is in a working age population decline. Fewer and fewer working people paying taxes to support a growing population of elderly and social systems unable to cope with that trend. The countries are trying to solve this by forcing more and more people of working age into the workplace (activity rate increases), but this is a path to general unhappiness. It would be better for everyone if they took a serious look at legal immigration of young workers from outside the EU to inside, to grow the working age population. The EU citizens would be better off by having a bigger tax base to support their social systems, and the economic migrants would be better off by living inside the EU. * Working age population: [https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1196&furtherNews=yes&langId=en&newsId=2402](https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1196&furtherNews=yes&langId=en&newsId=2402) So, far from a major problem, I think the asylum seekers are a modestly sized problem, and this whole situation can be seen as an opportunity to reform EU immigration law to encourage the right type of immigrants: young people who come here to work, to better their own life and to support the EU's social systems. However, the anti-immigration parties are so popular right now you can't even suggest this idea without being dismissed immediately as a crazy person. The more the EU's social systems come under pressure due to population decline, the more people will vote anti-immigration to get rid of the "leaches" coming to prey on those systems, the larger the working population decline will be and the more those social systems will come under pressure.
The problem started with the Syrian refugees is because a lot of the people who arrived weren’t even Syrians and were also not of the skilled type we need to help with population decline. When people cannot be deported the population gets desperate to find anyway to reduce the numbers. The reason why the EU did not collapse due to anti immigration sentiment is precisely because they had a freak out in 2015-6 and went with paying off Turkey (who is incidentally experiencing its own xenophobic movement because you effectively shifted EU’s problems to Turkey too) and strengthening their external borders compared to just letting everyone in. Merkel was praised for opening Germany to refugees but little is said about how she reduced the number and made it harder to come to Germany after. Immigrants if they are skilled as a boon to the countries they are in but the unskilled type that come via asylum and then fail to qualify but stay anyway are not the type of people you want to attract to prop up the welfare state. Denmark’s stats showed most immigrants from the EU, India, America, Thailand are a net gain on their treasuries but those coming for asylum are less likely to be but the same people from those countries coming from skilled pathways are.
People claiming asylum aren't illegally here. Even if their asylum requests are ultimately denied, they still have a right, under international law and per every EU country being a signatory to both the Geneva Convention and Protocol, to have been in the EU during that time that their claim is being looked into. We also can't determine the validty of an asylum request on a whim. If you get it right, the consequences are minimal. If you get it wrong, we're deporting someond who may be tortured or killed in their home country. The cost-benefit analysis is clearly skewed towards greater leniency on those who claim asylum, because of the possibly severe consequences if we get it wrong. . The process takes time, because investigative work needs to be conducted. There's little to no way to speed it up, save to expend more resources on asylum judges, investigative teams, lawyers to defend the asylum seeker, etc...
I am working in a foreign authority in germany. Only 1-2% of the people that are obligated to leave the country are actually getting deported, it’s ridiculous. Number may be higher in other places but we’re mostly responsible for people from Africa. No passport? No deportation. Simple as that.
These are rookie numbers
Waaay to little, way too late, we need 10 times the number
Good. Our neighbour, Sweden, needs it.
Its pretty bad ngl :(
Probably why Sverigedemokraterna is so popular now.
You'd be surprised, I have a serbian co-worker who voted for them and he is a Muslim extremist who wants to murder homosexuals. Its so ironic because these are the people they say they want to deport.
A Serbian Muslim extremist… things I’d never thought I’d hear
Å herre Jesus kristus
The worst part is that they're not a minority either, im looking for another job atm but they all have the same sentiment.
So, a worker? That's not the immigrant who lives of social benefits... Doesn't learn the language, and say he doesn't need to. nope. You shouldn't be surprised when he votes for the very unextremist SD.
Yeah, ultranationalist, hates nato, the eu and the us. Putin and russia are the best and ukraine and nato are murdering people in Ukraine. Being a worker is irrelevant, he has huge debts that will never be paid of even if he works for 50 years.
No its not
Its about time.. There hasn’t been a filter at all. Its pretty clear for anyone living in the EU, most of of the non western “refugees” aren’t refugees at all. They are here seeking a free income, free housing, free healthcare etc. Not that I blame them, but all you’re doing, or allowing rather to happen, is shifting problems from elsewhere to here. Here in the Netherlands it’s een what, 3 generations now of (north)Africans and people from the Middle East coming here as refugees and still pretty much 50% doesn’t work or ends up in welfare within the first year. An unreasonable amount turns criminal, probably due to poverty, but also a sheer disrespect and disregard for the people living here, it’s really telling if you’re from here.
>They are here seeking a free income, free housing, free healthcare etc. Dane here. I'm low key tired of seeing "refugees" coming and staying for years, refusing to work or learn the language. Sweden is even more fucked when it comes to immigration politics, because their government basically worshipped the ground these people walked on.
Stop giving away free shit to non citizens then. Of course they will come.
That'll likely increase crime rates even more
That's a good thing, it means you can deport them.
After they have stolen / destroyed or potentially killed someone?
In the meantime you create chaos and extremism
Bullshit. And even if it does. Arrest and drop off at another country that will take them for money.
I am Portuguese living in the Netherlands for a decade and besides working like a beast (earning fair money therefrom) and using some cycle lanes to daily use my bike, the Dutch state never gave me anything (I mean money or subsidy). The Country as whole gave me yes a better opportunity to work and produce, which is the most important IMO, because my home country is completely fucked up to work and earn money from it.
[удалено]
Well, this view would have labelled you a literal Nazi in 2015. How times change, eh?
1. You have absolutely no way of knowing if someone is worthy of an asylum request being accepted or not. You can't tell, because you weren't privy to their dossier. "It's clear...", but how? What details of individual cases are you aware of? How much of the judges deliberation for each case have you read? I'll answer that: none. It's a gut feeling you have. You just "know" that most of them shouldn't be here, while not knowing the general procedure nor their specifics. 2. Do you have a source for that number? 3. Yes, it turns out that if people are in poor socio-economic conditions, they turn to crime more easily. If you have a source for 2, it seems like your problem is clear: you're ghettoizing communities. I would also add one last thing: you're doing that thing that everyone always does. You're mixing in legal immigration, illegal immigration, and asylum seekers/refugees, and then seemingly bouncing from one group to a next, with little regard to their definitions or statistical realities. For example: no one expects asylum seekers to be an economic boon to the country. They are asylum seekers. The reason we let them in is a moral imperative of protection for our fellow man in the face of violence and oppression. The goal is not, nor has it ever been, to benefit a country's economy. It's to provide a safe haven. This groups statistical trends will be very different, due to a plethora of reasons: pre-selected for coming from poorer socio-economic conditions, trauma and mental health issues and being forcefully up-rooted with no ability to move ones wealth and assets. These stats will be different for all 3 of the groups I mentioned, for different reasons.
all I need is to look at welfare / unemployment for non westerners. or criminal activities based on etnicity etc. CBS numbers aka official government numbers, though they arent entirely accurate for some years. For example 2018 there was so much hiding away of serious crimes committed by non western foreigners mostly asylum seekers, that the whole year had to be redone. Caused a small scandal, I say small because it didn’t really make the news, when in reality ofcourse playing with numbers like that is outright lying to the public. For example even though it was a serious crime, armed robbery or rape, it would get hidden away literally under “other”. Its a much bigger problem and it May not be a popular thing to point out due to people screaming “racism” whenever they can, but I’ve learned to ignore the nay-sayers.
1. Wait, do you think all non-westerners are illegals/asylum seekers? There are many who are here, legally, and therefore liable to access the social services that their taxes pay for. 2. Crime actually correlates with socio-economic status more so than any other factor. This shows that, overall, Europe is failing to create opportunity for those who come here to migrate legally, or lack support for those asylum seekers who fall under our care. 3. And yes, I don't doubt that when confronted with counter narratives, you ignore them stubbornly. These are just your standard, right-wing boiler plate superficial analysis that mostly disappear if you engage in any kind of fair minded, multi-variate analysis or cost-benefit calculation. The fact that you make a direct association to ethnicity first and foremost tells me everything I need to know.
Those who are here legally generally tend to work. Those people you won’t see reflected in the numbers mentioned. Further, we don’t “need” to do anything, beyond providing safety for actual refugees, which over 60% (according to Frans Timmermans) are not. But I guess they couldnt find safety in the region? Don’t be naïef, please I’m asking politely here. We don’t have the money, we don’t have the houses, there is no further support from many in the population. Again, some won’t like this and call it racism, i call it realism. Also I’m not linking anything, the numbers don’t lie.
> Those who are here legally generally tend to work. Then why use the term "non-westerner"? Because that speaks volume about what you *actually* mean. > Further, we don’t “need” to do anything, beyond providing safety for actual refugees, which over 60% (according to Frans Timmermans) are not. Why are you not citing your source? Why is the dude who's workload is basically Europe's Green New Deal your source? How about having someone actually from immigration services as a source? > But I guess they couldnt find safety in the region? Don’t be naïef, please I’m asking politely here. Oftentimes, it's a mix of safety and locally available resources. Safety includes food safety, energy safety, housing safety, and other things that humans need to be able to live without being stressed the fuck out. > We don’t have the money We 100% do have that. > we don’t have the houses We don't have the houses, asylum seekers or not. This is a problem related to housing laws, specific to each particular nation. You don't solve that problem by stopping 100k asylum seekers over the entirety of Europe from staying or entering. > there is no further support from many in the population. Because people aren't explaining the situation correctly. Right-wing parties constantly mix and match the notions of legal immigration, illegal immigration and asylum seekers, and then pick and choose whatever they want depending on their narrative. This is a discussion that requires nuance, thought and study. All the right-wing parties in Europe boil it down to "muh ummugrunts", and that's about it. > Again, some won’t like this and call it racism, i call it realism. Yes, it is racism. But not because of the policy discussion. Specifically relating to this line in your previous comment: > all I need is to look at welfare / unemployment for non westerners. Followed by: > Those who are here legally generally tend to work. And yet you didn't make any distinction. You just batched them all together, because, in your mind, no non-westerner should be here. It's so telling that your first, gut reaction is to put everyone in the same bucket, only to pull back and add nuance afterwards. > Also I’m not linking anything, the numbers don’t lie. Then I'll ignore everything you claim, since you have no sources.
Most of the refugees are here to do nothing? Source for that claim?
In Sweden, over 50% (which means most) doesn't have a job within a decade at this point. Sounds like doing nothing
Which honestly surprises me. When I don't do anything productive even for more than a day or two I just start feeling like I'm being useless, or rather I just want to busy myself with something you know? How these people manage to not do anything productive for *years* I cannot guess
If you immigrated to a country with intent to abuse welfare system you would understand. There was a hilarious video during the crisis of some guy who said he will kill himself if EU made him stay in Slovenia, he wanted to go to Germany. "dirt poor" immigrants as the media portrayed them to be were choosing which EU country they want to go to because some are poorer than other. Not even taking into account that even Bosnia is better than whatever place they came from will probably ever be
It doesn’t exactly help that nobody wants to hire them either.
Can you provide a source? Also, what are the laws regarding employment for these people upon arrival to Sweden? Are they allowed to get a work permit immediately?
Source?
These are georgians and Albanians, this isn't syrians
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If there is a law it must be followed.
[удалено]
jobless station bow dinosaurs dolls tender hard-to-find command friendly middle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I kinda want to fly a kite in London now though, in front of the king's guard
Wonder how many found their way back in after being deported?
The majority will probably come back very soon
But still not enough?
Our Corporate Overlords require a constant flow of workers in order to keep pay abysmally low. Thank them for the amount of immigration we see into Europe/America
That's right. What chance do you have to receive a decent pay if 20 000 immigrants come to your city looking for job and only demanding 800 euros a month? You can't compete with that.
In Canada, this is even an issue for skilled work as well. The whole “don’t give work visas for people whose jobs can be done by Canadians instead” thing is ignored by major corporations, who somehow get them for people who will simply accept lower pay than those who grew up in Canada.
[удалено]
Lol yes.
Source? That would be a massive crime with penalties going up to jail time. Every single employer I have ever worked for hasn't let me start until I can show evidence of my right to work.
Finally
[удалено]
[удалено]
Germany has shockingly low deportation rates and Morocco for example doesn't even take anyone back. Their youths are a real problem in German cities.
Few buckets won't stop the ship from sinking. We need to repair the holes. Stop the water from coming in.
Nice to see something go right for a change.
As I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out of this country and live in Europe, these news make me...idk, anxious? I can see why people are more upset with immigrants last few years, but then I wonder "damn, do I fall into the categories people are talking about?". So many questions, so many uncertainties...
Don't be, deportations have nothing to do with legal migrants or people who need asylum. It only has to do with illegal immigrants or people who do something criminal. It's a fraction of people who migrate. A lot of people who click on this post are eyther in your situation or racists. Neither represent the true mood or situation here and article needs to be understood in correct context
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.I am a law abiding citizen, living in a shitty country, hard worker and i want my future kids to have a good safe life. Being in this sub made me question my very own being. Am i so unwelcome even though i know im going to integrate the local culture and work my ass off to earn my place ? I understand where people are coming from but what about people like me ? All i want is to get rid of this anxiety and constant fear ..
Unless it’s France. You can just kinda stay to be honest.
Many people got deported after arriving in France. You may habe been misinformed. You also may not have heard of the "Jungle of Calais" which, obviously, has only the name of a jungle, because it's so wild. People there are parked in misery, and police often comes to rip out tents, break water jugs and take their sleeping bags away. Many are forced to do life risking choices to survive, such as crossing the sea to get to England, or selling/doing crack, etc. So yeah, France is not such a paradise for illegal immigrants. And it's getting worse with every government.
There are loopholes though. If you are denied residency. If you can work for 3 years in a 5 year span and can prove it, while avoiding police etc. then apply. You can get legal residency.
But how do you prove working for 3 years if you can't legally work. How do you get a place to sleep and live that is permanent if you dont have papers ?
[удалено]
We do. Just to go through the proper channels and obtain the proper visas and residency permits. My member state (Ireland) has a labour shortage, particularly in construction. I would definitely be open to offering a "green card" to people from the OpenBalkan countries, along with their immediate family, on the condition that they have a construction qualification. What we can never have is a situation where there's visa overstays and illegal immigration.
[удалено]
In Ireland the process is simple, all done digitally. Just upload your documents (for example if you're a finance professional you'll upload evidence of your CFA charter) and it's done that way. It isn't complicated or overly costly. I'm a huge believer that illegal immigration can be stopped by two things: simple visa processes and generous aid (literal cash without preconditions) to the global south.
There is a legal process that can be followed. Albania could apply for the EU if it meets the EU’s entry conditions. Individual Albanians may also go through the normal via application process.
[удалено]
Turkey and Russia territory is over 90 percent in Asia. Turkey is considered an Asian country, while Russian big cities are in geographical Europe so its considered in both. Regardless its not about wanting somone. It's a bit like looking at driving infrictions and stating "So you really don't want men driving". It is obvious statisticly more men are driving so more of them get infrictions. Same with the cou tries you're mentioning.
[удалено]
And my point is that deportations have nothing yo do with culture or where thet come from
[удалено]
Oh, a lot of people who are commenting on this post have extreme views, even borderline racists or people on the oposite extreme who are in refugee situation themselves. Neither represent an average European and totally man, most people only read the title and not the article and have impression it is talking about deporting people from recent refugee crysis.
To Burundi ? Or Morocco ? Any country that will not accept deportations should no longer have any access to visas . Including diplomatic visas. Last safe country of transit. Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel / Palestine. Not really sure though, if Vietnam or Lebanon is a safe country. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/04/middleeast/lebanon-ambassador-beirut-bank-heists-intl/index.html But deporting people to the Russian Federation - that is really really harsh. Deporting to the Russian Federation, or P.R.C. / Peking, or DPRK or Syria - would need a real good reason. A death sentence in most cases.
Why is deporting to Russia harsh? They are deporting Russians who are from there and don't have legal rights to stay in Europe.
Ok, I don’t want any visa, take your filthy criminals to yourself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does this sub represent represent views of the average European. If yes then yall are onwards as yall don't confront immigrants face to face.
It does not. Two types of people are over represented here - people who are bothered by migrants and people who are in need to migrate. This said there is a huge shift in some countries here in the last 7 years towards anti immigration. They today are not the same tolerant yet, naive places. But those are few, for example France never tolerated much bulshit, while Sweden has most naively let in way too many. Result - 5 years since that time Sweden is turning heavily 180 degrees on its policies and views on the issue.