Yes, but there are multiple routes within the larger Mediterranean area (western, central, eastern), with different demographic breakdowns.
In any case, the main points still stand: The sea routes are not the only routes, and the “75% of refugees are men” claim is demonstrably false.
Absolutely not. The rest of Europe should follow Britain and the Netherlands’ example in accepting refugees selected by UNHCR from refugee camps along the Syrian border, thus removing any incentive to pay people smugglers and make dangerous sea crossings into Europe.
The Germans, for a nation that were incredibly “hot” on the idea of perverse incentives during the Greek Eurozone crisis, seem to have taken leave of their senses during this crisis and are now trying to encourage the rest of Europe to follow them in their madness. No.
At least in this phase, the British plan looks good for the key interests - Syrians inc. At the moment it’s a life and death journeys to then be herded together with peoples from many countries and circs.
One difficulty arises for those who are not ‘selected’ from the camps.
Just kill them… you are already doing that.
Britain will accept 20000 Syrian refugees over the next five years. What on Earth makes you think that this would remove “any incentive” for the millions of refugees who are currently living in Turkish and Lebanese camps to take the trafficker’s routes?
If Germany were to follow that example, what would you suggest to do with the thousands who arrive by boat today? If your suggestion is any better than just to shrug and leave countries like Greece and Italy alone with the problem, I would like to hear it.
Remove all incentive to reach Europe via illegal means. All refugees that reach Europe without going through the correct channels will be sent back to Turkey, Lebanon, North Africa or wherever they came from. Boats filled with migrants at sea should be intercepted, their passengers removed and sent back to where they set off from, with the boats torpedoed.
What is your proposed solution to stem the tide of migrants washing up on Europe’s shore?
Allowing them to pay a fee to the correct authorities and allow them to fly to the allowed destinations.
… And not doing that is one of the main reasons why we have people drowning.
[QUOTE=Hans Rosling (medical doctor, academic, statistician)] The European government has escaped responsibility when they have transferred the task to decide who is a refugee and who is not a refugee to the staff at the check-in counter.So in practice, what is happening is that no one can board without a visa!
So it is this directive that is the reason for so many refugees drowning in the Mediterranean sea.
[/QUOTE]
I have to admit your English is good for a non-native, but there were certain words and phrases which I picked up on, which was why I asked.
So… A couple of questions:
Where are you a native of? (If you don’t mind me asking).
Having established that you’re not British, who the hell do you think you are, trying to dictate to us what our immigration policy should be?
You can only send refugees back to Turkey, Lebanon et al., if those countries agree to take them back. Do not forget that the refugees are not Turkish/Lebanese nationals. These countries are under no legal obligation to take them in, and the fact that they have been in those countries before does not change that.
For migrants (other than refugees) you have the option of bringing them back to their country of origin after you have established that they have no legal claim to asylum in your country. I am all for doing that, but in practice it is often difficult, because you have to determine what their country of origin is.
Sending refugees back to their country of origin while whatever conditions that caused them to flee still prevail would be a violation of the Geneva Convention which represents the basis for applicable law in most countries. So it is not an option.
As for my proposed solution, you will probably be disappointed, because I do not believe there is a quick solution. But I believe we should do all of the following:
[ul]
[li]Use what influence we have to stabilize the situation in countries like Syria and Iraq. (Will take long. No effect for the short term situation.)[/li][li]Support the neighboring countries of crisis zones logistically and financially so that they can create bearable living conditions for as many refugees as possible. (It will not be possible to do that for all refugees. Their number is far too large.)[/li][li]Reduce numbers in the refugee camps by taking in a significant share of them. Distribute them over all western nations. Gulf states and ideally even Russia should contribute too. The more nations contribute, the less of a burden each nation will have to bear.[/li][li]Intensify the prosecution of traffickers. These people are not kind refugee helpers. Human trafficking is a form of organized crime and needs to be handled accordingly.[/li][li]Establish more efficient asylum procedures in the helper nations so that it is possible to quickly determine who is entitled to shelter as a refugee. Send those who are not back to their home nations in order to free up the capacity for refugees.[/li][/ul]
All of this will not solve the refugee crisis. But it is the best way of handling it that I can think of right now.
Demonstrably false? What is it then? 90%?
If it’s demonstrably false, feel free to enlighten me.
For Germany it is not false. Most asylum seekers are male. (It depends on who you are counting but your 75% is not *that *far off the mark.) Many of them hope that after being accepted as a refugee they can legally bring in their families without having to resort to traffickers. This is, however, not as easy as they believe.
Germany is obviously too dangerous for asylum seekers because hundreds have marched up the motorway in Denmark, closing down the main road route between Germany and Denmark. The police have been “reluctant to intervene” as they make their way to Sweden. They are refusing to register in Denmark because the welfare benefits have been cut there.
But Shame On You if you try to suggest they are economic migrants.
It’s not my 75%. camille quoted that figure as false, I’m just asking for clarification.
Shame or no shame. You do not understand what a refugee is. I have explained it enough in this thread. So if you really want to know (do you?), google it yourself.
You said: “There is a difference between a migrant who moves fom Serbia to Germany in order to find better job opportunities and a Syrian who leaves a Turkish refugee camp.”
So which one best describes a migrant moving from Germany to Sweden?
That depends.
If he is from Serbia and came to Germany in order to find better job opportunities, he remains a migrant. He still has the option to go back home.
If he is from Syria and came to Germany because there is a war going on in his home country, he remains a refugee. He cannot go home.
By the way: You will not find a post where I am saying that the refugees are or should be free to choose the country that will be their refuge.
El Salvador, fleeing the civil war in the 80’s. Now an American citizen.
Now that is just another distraction and a dumb thing to say, I was referring to British guys like David Cameron that are consulting better advisers with better advice than the one you are giving so far.
As an American citizen, you don’t have to put up with the wannabe bully boys, the Germans. They ride roughshed over the conventions of the EU. Their unilateral Anschluss of East Germany had a great effect on the European economy and their unilateral recognition of Slovenia and Croatia may well have had a negative effect on the break up of Yugoslavia. Now they are welcoming migrants in and demanding that other EU countries take their ‘fair share’.
The British people don’t tend to like being ordered what to do by the Germans.
And I’m not sure what’s so ‘dumb’ (as you put it) about questioning why an American should be telling us what to do, either.
My question was about migrants moving from Germany to Sweden.
Very limited view of history there. The British did divide Syria and Iraq and got involved in a lot of deals that did cause a lot of what we are seeing now.
I think that what Cameron proposes is fair regarding the refugees.
It is dumb because I have been pointing at British people that are indeed doing the right thing, so you do not need to follow me. I’m not as important as them, point being then that you are only babbling about an American pointing at what better Britons like Cameron are doing. Your words here are indeed only an attempt at denying what is going on.
That not even in Britain they are listening to guys like you.