Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
c933103 wrote:In rest of the world, how would other countries or territories deal with these asylum seekers?
c933103 wrote:In rest of the world, how would other countries or territories deal with these asylum seekers?
Kilopond wrote:As a fact, "migrants"/"refugees"/"asylum seekers" are weapons used by certain hegomonial forces in order to destabilise countries. There are numerous examples of this strategy in history. The trick of those demagogues is to completely switch off any rational thinking and shifting completely to emotional approaches.
prebennorholm wrote:Could you please indicate in which country you experience what you describe. Without that information it's not possible to know what "rest of the world" is.
anrec80 wrote:First, can you share what country is this in?
anrec80 wrote:Now - why do some countries get these “asylum seekers” and others don’t? Answer is in the article itself. What they call “small subsidies”. Let’s look at European “asylum” crisis. Why do all these migrants want to get to Britain, France, Germany, Sweden? All while in countries like Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia as just as safe. Well - welfare and subsidies, where he can get more. Only 0.1% of these “asylum seekers” work legally and pay taxes.
Another prominent example - Russia. They also have millions of migrants from poorer Central Asian republics and now Ukraine. By far more then Europe took. But - there is no welfare. All such a “refugee” will be entitled to is a seat in a language class and work permit. And will be expected to support himself, and pay taxes. And - guess what - nobody “seeks asylum”, they do just that - get jobs and support themselves. No migrant crisis at all.
anrec80 wrote:c933103 wrote:In rest of the world, how would other countries or territories deal with these asylum seekers?
First, can you share what country is this in?
Now - why do some countries get these “asylum seekers” and others don’t? Answer is in the article itself. What they call “small subsidies”. Let’s look at European “asylum” crisis. Why do all these migrants want to get to Britain, France, Germany, Sweden? All while in countries like Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia as just as safe. Well - welfare and subsidies, where he can get more. Only 0.1% of these “asylum seekers” work legally and pay taxes.
Another prominent example - Russia. They also have millions of migrants from poorer Central Asian republics and now Ukraine. By far more then Europe took. But - there is no welfare. All such a “refugee” will be entitled to is a seat in a language class and work permit. And will be expected to support himself, and pay taxes. And - guess what - nobody “seeks asylum”, they do just that - get jobs and support themselves. No migrant crisis at all.
Flighty wrote:With the rise of the information age, people in poor countries realize they could be earning minimum USD 100 per day in a developed country without any desirable skills. If they do have excellent skills, the wage could be 300 USD per day.
VSMUT wrote:Flighty wrote:With the rise of the information age, people in poor countries realize they could be earning minimum USD 100 per day in a developed country without any desirable skills. If they do have excellent skills, the wage could be 300 USD per day.
Of course, nobody ever mentions that the living costs are also disproportionally higher. 100 usd will barely pay for a meal for the entire family at McDonalds in Northern Europe, let alone clothing and housing. In the end, quality of life in the ghettos is probably worse than if they stayed in the country of origin, at least if you stay on the right side of the law.
blueflyer wrote:Some EU countries (I think Netherlands and Belgium, maybe more) grant certain asylum seekers work permits if they are found to have a credible claim on the initial review of their application. The process to a final determination (last administrative review + possible legal appeals) can stretch out over years, and letting applicants work and pay taxes is deemed preferable to having the state support them financially. While overall it seems like a positive approach, it has at times heart-wrenching outcomes when an applicant has fully integrated, married, has had children, and is informed 7, 8, 9 years after applying that the final determination is negative and they have 30 days to leave the country...
anrec80 wrote:How can a no-name organization raise money enough to operate whole fleets of ships with crews for long time? .
moo wrote:VSMUT wrote:Flighty wrote:With the rise of the information age, people in poor countries realize they could be earning minimum USD 100 per day in a developed country without any desirable skills. If they do have excellent skills, the wage could be 300 USD per day.
Of course, nobody ever mentions that the living costs are also disproportionally higher. 100 usd will barely pay for a meal for the entire family at McDonalds in Northern Europe, let alone clothing and housing. In the end, quality of life in the ghettos is probably worse than if they stayed in the country of origin, at least if you stay on the right side of the law.
If you want to make a decent argument, don't try and fill it with utter bollocks.
$100 in the UK would buy you 20 Medium Big Mac meals. How big is your family, exactly?
Flightys point is spot on - in the UK we have an issue with illegal immigrants who come to the UK, live in dorm style rooms or illegally let tenament flats, work illegally for abysmal wages in horrific conditions and still send the bulk of their earnings back to their home country where it has hugely higher buying power.
Even a good proportion of the legal eastern-European EU migrants do this.
VSMUT wrote:moo wrote:VSMUT wrote:
Of course, nobody ever mentions that the living costs are also disproportionally higher. 100 usd will barely pay for a meal for the entire family at McDonalds in Northern Europe, let alone clothing and housing. In the end, quality of life in the ghettos is probably worse than if they stayed in the country of origin, at least if you stay on the right side of the law.
If you want to make a decent argument, don't try and fill it with utter bollocks.
$100 in the UK would buy you 20 Medium Big Mac meals. How big is your family, exactly?
Flightys point is spot on - in the UK we have an issue with illegal immigrants who come to the UK, live in dorm style rooms or illegally let tenament flats, work illegally for abysmal wages in horrific conditions and still send the bulk of their earnings back to their home country where it has hugely higher buying power.
Even a good proportion of the legal eastern-European EU migrants do this.
You just admitted it yourself. Abysmal wages, living too many people in tiny apartments, often illegally. Great quality of life indeed. BTW, 100 USD will buy you about 5 meals at McDonalds where I live.
Another issue is that disproportionally many fail to save up for pension, typically because they sent all the money abroad.
anrec80 wrote:Kilopond wrote:As a fact, "migrants"/"refugees"/"asylum seekers" are weapons used by certain hegomonial forces in order to destabilise countries. There are numerous examples of this strategy in history. The trick of those demagogues is to completely switch off any rational thinking and shifting completely to emotional approaches.
Agree. How do all these “refugees” get into Europe? They have a whole bunch of NGOs operating ships for months and years ferrying them from Libya into Europe. It costs millions to hire a vessel with a crew to “rescue”. And these aren’t organizations like Salvation Army, Intenrational Red Cross. They claim they “operate on donations”. How can a no-name organization raise money enough to operate whole fleets of ships with crews for long time? Who are the “sponsors”? Where is the funding from? Budgets are large, so are sponsorship grantors, with obviously undisclosed intentions.
VSMUT wrote:BTW, 100 USD will buy you about 5 meals at McDonalds where I live.
moo wrote:
And a McDonalds meal costs $20 where you are from? Where? It doesn't even cost that here in NZ and this is an extremely costly country for food....
aviationaware wrote:Paid for by George Soros™.
aviationaware wrote:moo wrote:
And a McDonalds meal costs $20 where you are from? Where? It doesn't even cost that here in NZ and this is an extremely costly country for food....
New Zealand (same as Australia) is only costly for produce. For meat, it's very cheap. Since McDonald's meals aren't exactly stacked with produce, neither of those countries is near the top of the McDonald's price chart.
VSMUT wrote:Of course, nobody ever mentions that the living costs are also disproportionally higher. 100 usd will barely pay for a meal for the entire family at McDonalds in Northern Europe, let alone clothing and housing. In the end, quality of life in the ghettos is probably worse than if they stayed in the country of origin, at least if you stay on the right side of the law.
aviationaware wrote:I don't think you understand the effect of currency exchange rates very well. Beef is only very slightly more expensive in NZ than in the UK on a par for par.
Aesma wrote:blueflyer wrote:Some EU countries (I think Netherlands and Belgium, maybe more) grant certain asylum seekers work permits if they are found to have a credible claim on the initial review of their application. The process to a final determination (last administrative review + possible legal appeals) can stretch out over years, and letting applicants work and pay taxes is deemed preferable to having the state support them financially. While overall it seems like a positive approach, it has at times heart-wrenching outcomes when an applicant has fully integrated, married, has had children, and is informed 7, 8, 9 years after applying that the final determination is negative and they have 30 days to leave the country...
Can't they get citizenship after 5 years in the country ?
moo wrote:Do you want me to put together a comprehensive comparison for you?
aviationaware wrote:moo wrote:Do you want me to put together a comprehensive comparison for you?
Not necessary - there are plenty available online that come to a completely different result than yours.
blueflyer wrote:Aesma wrote:blueflyer wrote:Some EU countries (I think Netherlands and Belgium, maybe more) grant certain asylum seekers work permits if they are found to have a credible claim on the initial review of their application. The process to a final determination (last administrative review + possible legal appeals) can stretch out over years, and letting applicants work and pay taxes is deemed preferable to having the state support them financially. While overall it seems like a positive approach, it has at times heart-wrenching outcomes when an applicant has fully integrated, married, has had children, and is informed 7, 8, 9 years after applying that the final determination is negative and they have 30 days to leave the country...
Can't they get citizenship after 5 years in the country ?
The clock starts ticking when an application is finally approved, not when the application is filed, I believe.
tu204 wrote:Having worked for over half a year in an African country with a whole lot of IDP's and a large UNHCR presense, I convinced myself for good that the whole UN/EU/liberal approach to refugees in general is pure bullshit, destructive and only makes the situation worse.
I remember growing up in Canada and watching on weekdays those television fundraising programs about "your support of X dollars a day...blah blah blah".
Now having seen with my own eyes the outcome I am so glad I never donated a cent in all those fundraisers and urge others not to.
I can't speak for them in other countries, but thesepeople live in refugee camps for years, being fed, given water, shelter and medical assistance when it is safe for them to go back to their homes. Yeah, their homes (read - mud huts with straw roofs) were destroyed. Too bad, yes, I agree. I could build one from scratch in a week or two.
So why don't they? Because they are living the African dream in their refugee camps!
Don't have to work? Will be given food/water/shelter/medicine?
That's the life!
Makes it even worse when you know how much money is being wasted to fund each one of these camps.
aviationaware wrote:Crooked Hillary Clinton rear-ended Europe by killing off Gaddafi, who was the one force keeping all this illegal immigration in check. Gaddafi even warned Europe of exactly what was going to happen if he was ever overthrown, but Angela Merkel and Monsieur Bling-Bling Sarkozy wouldn't listen. Then obviously, after he was overthrown, the number of illegal boat immigrants skyrocketed as everyone could have foreseen. That was either extremely stupid of Hillary Clinton, or, more likely, deliberate to weaken Europe. She is extremely vile and evil after all, so I have no problem to assume the worst of her.
aviationaware wrote:
Crooked Hillary Clinton rear-ended Europe by killing off Gaddafi, who was the one force keeping all this illegal immigration in check. Gaddafi even warned Europe of exactly what was going to happen if he was ever overthrown, but Angela Merkel and Monsieur Bling-Bling Sarkozy wouldn't listen. Then obviously, after he was overthrown, the number of illegal boat immigrants skyrocketed as everyone could have foreseen. That was either extremely stupid of Hillary Clinton, or, more likely, deliberate to weaken Europe. She is extremely vile and evil after all, so I have no problem to assume the worst of her..
trpmb6 wrote:tu204 wrote:Having worked for over half a year in an African country with a whole lot of IDP's and a large UNHCR presense, I convinced myself for good that the whole UN/EU/liberal approach to refugees in general is pure bullshit, destructive and only makes the situation worse.
I remember growing up in Canada and watching on weekdays those television fundraising programs about "your support of X dollars a day...blah blah blah".
Now having seen with my own eyes the outcome I am so glad I never donated a cent in all those fundraisers and urge others not to.
I can't speak for them in other countries, but thesepeople live in refugee camps for years, being fed, given water, shelter and medical assistance when it is safe for them to go back to their homes. Yeah, their homes (read - mud huts with straw roofs) were destroyed. Too bad, yes, I agree. I could build one from scratch in a week or two.
So why don't they? Because they are living the African dream in their refugee camps!
Don't have to work? Will be given food/water/shelter/medicine?
That's the life!
Makes it even worse when you know how much money is being wasted to fund each one of these camps.
Back to your quote, it doesn't provide much incentive to return to your home if you're provided with all your essential needs. Just like you don't feed animals in the wild. They become dependent. (Pardon me using that type of analogy when discussing humans). Why would you want to go back to back breaking work when you've already got it made (comparatively).
EstherLouise wrote:If it were up to me, asylum seekers would have to carry some sort of traceable ID. And before they get let in my country (or any country), they get their backgrounds investigated. It's not that difficult. Takes a week. If Sergey from Crimea shows up without ID of SOME SORT, he goes back to where he says he's from to get his ID. The least I'd expect is a library card with a photo, so I'm not asking for much.
EstherLouise wrote:he goes back to where he says he's from to get his ID. .
tu204 wrote:keep them temporary camps (under the not-so-best, but livable conditions)
tommy1808 wrote:tu204 wrote:keep them temporary camps (under the not-so-best, but livable conditions)
great idea. Also violates international law.
best regards
Thomas
tu204 wrote:You can always find loopholes.
All you really have to do is make conditions such that future "asylum seekers" are demotivated from coming. That and keep them detained and not ket them out into the general population where they will dissapear.
I can't say I read the international law partaining to this, but I am assuming it says some basic stuff like food, shelter and safety. Which can be interpreted differently.
And that by itself will only keep just part of these asylum seekers away.
If you can't protect your own borders, what do you expect?
I remeber images from several years back of hordes of people storming your national borders. Pretty sure under international law that justifies using lethal force.
Your guys didn't use it, were seen as weak and exploited to the full. Now you have the problem that you have...
EstherLouise wrote:If it were up to me, asylum seekers would have to carry some sort of traceable ID. And before they get let in my country (or any country), they get their backgrounds investigated. It's not that difficult. Takes a week. If Sergey from Crimea shows up without ID of SOME SORT, he goes back to where he says he's from to get his ID. The least I'd expect is a library card with a photo, so I'm not asking for much.
tommy1808 wrote:Letting those Refugees in not just pretty much defeated ISIS, you are welcome,
L410Turbolet wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Letting those Refugees in not just pretty much defeated ISIS, you are welcome,
You should consider a career of a stand-up comedian. Or a Merkel's propagandist. Not that they are mutually exclusive...
anrec80 wrote:Kilopond wrote:As a fact, "migrants"/"refugees"/"asylum seekers" are weapons used by certain hegomonial forces in order to destabilise countries. There are numerous examples of this strategy in history. The trick of those demagogues is to completely switch off any rational thinking and shifting completely to emotional approaches.
Agree. How do all these “refugees” get into Europe? They have a whole bunch of NGOs operating ships for months and years ferrying them from Libya into Europe. It costs millions to hire a vessel with a crew to “rescue”. And these aren’t organizations like Salvation Army, Intenrational Red Cross. They claim they “operate on donations”. How can a no-name organization raise money enough to operate whole fleets of ships with crews for long time? Who are the “sponsors”? Where is the funding from? Budgets are large, so are sponsorship grantors, with obviously undisclosed intentions.
tommy1808 wrote:All you really have to do is make conditions such that future "asylum seekers" are demotivated from coming. That and keep them detained and not ket them out into the general population where they will dissapear.
also illegal
tommy1808 wrote:And that by itself will only keep just part of these asylum seekers away.
right.... "ah... i don´t like what they mean by food & shelter, so i rather stay home and get myself murderd....
tommy1808 wrote:If you can't protect your own borders, what do you expect?
We can.
tommy1808 wrote:Your guys didn't use it, were seen as weak and exploited to the full. Now you have the problem that you have...
People using violence to solve problems are about the weakest people on this planet. Usually those are cowards too
Letting those Refugees in not just pretty much defeated ISIS, you are welcome, had start up costs lower than what you spend on killing people in Syria, and is expected to turn a net profit for Budget & Economy.
tommy1808 wrote:L410Turbolet wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Letting those Refugees in not just pretty much defeated ISIS, you are welcome,
You should consider a career of a stand-up comedian. Or a Merkel's propagandist. Not that they are mutually exclusive...
yeah.. it is very easy to entertain audiences that don´t care about reality. ISIS running out of people fighting for them is a well documented fact, that they liked to go to villages and force young man into service under thread of murdering them and their families, and not in a nice way, also is. Until those young man where gone and ISIS held territory deflated like a balloon....
best regards
Thomas
tu204 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:All you really have to do is make conditions such that future "asylum seekers" are demotivated from coming. That and keep them detained and not ket them out into the general population where they will dissapear.
also illegal
How is that illegal? Is it stated somewhere that they be put up in at least 3 star hotels?
raising your crime levels
tu204 wrote:Probably more to do with the Russian Aerospace Forces and allies obliderating them and others stoping their flow of finances.