Israel issues deportation notices to African migrants

[dexterm]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Now that their own Countries are safe , they can return home .

They can build a better Country for themselves , rather than expecting Israel to provide a better life for them

All depends which planet one is living on.

 

"A 2016 UN commission of inquiry into Eritrea’s regime found “widespread and systematic” crimes against humanity and said an estimated 5,000 people flee the country each month. The international criminal court has indicted the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide linked to his regime’s counter-insurgency tactics in the 14-year-old Darfur conflict.

ASSAF says that there are thousands from the Darfur region of western Sudan among those seeking asylum in Israel whose applications have not yet been answered."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/israel-holocaust-survivors-african-migrants-netanyahu

[geriatrickid]

19 hours ago, simple1 said:

One would think Israel has very secure borders / immigration protocols, so how would they illegally enter Israel? I assume they entered legally and have since had their asylum request rejected for whatever reason/s.

A secure border does not prevent illegal migration. For example, Canada and the USA have one of the safest and most secure borders in the world. Yet, on any given day, illegal migrants cross from the USA  into Canada  and claim refugee status.  This is what happens in Israel, except that along the way, the Africans are abused, robbed, beaten and extorted as they make their way through Arab territory.

 

As has been documented by human rights organizations, the  standard  manner of crossing is to transit via the Sinai and to cross over into Israel. They then sit and wait for an IDF patrol to come and collect them. The migrants are picked up, taken to the nearest IDF base where they are  fed and watered. They are then  transferred to an immigration processing center. After a short detention for security vetting, they are then released into the general population if it is determined that they are  economic migrants. Israel states that since 2006, an excess of 100,000+ african migrants have  been documented  at the Sinai border. The number who  were successfully smuggled in by Bedouin is not included.

 

Those who have their asylum request rejected and pose a risk of "flight" are put into a special detention center. The problem Israel has is that it cannot incarcerate tens of thousands of illegal migrants. It has neither the resources nor the space for them. 

 

Lost in the discussion is the question of where these people who are released should go and live. As part of the Palestinian  solidarity with the African plight, it would be nice if the PLA welcomed the Africans  in the west bank. The Africans could live in  housing the PLA would build for them. This way, humanitarian compassion  and generosity could be shared.

 

 

[sanemax]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

All depends which planet one is living on.

 

"A 2016 UN commission of inquiry into Eritrea’s regime found “widespread and systematic” crimes against humanity and said an estimated 5,000 people flee the country each month. The international criminal court has indicted the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide linked to his regime’s counter-insurgency tactics in the 14-year-old Darfur conflict.

ASSAF says that there are thousands from the Darfur region of western Sudan among those seeking asylum in Israel whose applications have not yet been answered."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/26/israel-holocaust-survivors-african-migrants-netanyahu

I was talking about the Sudanese , many of those are now going back to Sudan

[simple1]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

I cannot understand what you are trying to say

1: More illegal overstayers, mainly Russian, than asylum seekers,

 

2: It was claimed by F4Ucorsair Etrian and Sudanese asylum seekers exploit the  Israeli welfare system, from my link seems the two groups are excluded from the Israeli welfare state.

Edited February 6, 2018 by simple1

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

I suspect that your keen interest in this topic is less to do with caring for African migrants/refugees/asylum seekers, and more with your ongoing crusade denouncing pretty much anything to do with Israel.

 

That aside, it is true that Israel's handling of these people is not on-par with how things are dealt with in, say, Western Europe. Then again, Israel is not Western Europe.

 

Labeling all of these people as work migrants is obviously wrong, and it would have been better if a more discerning approach was adopted. That said, the wide-brush descriptions touted in your post "all these human beings who have fled war, torture and death" is just a mirror image of the same. Not all of them are this or that, and I would venture that many are somewhere in between. Coming from someone who often offers generalized labels when commenting on Israelis (and Palestinians), this is all the more disingenuous.

 

The relatively recent campaigns against the deportation receive all that much support, really. Further, and this was pointed out in some of the less fringe sources you cite, the nature and tone of these campaigns seem to play more to supporters moralizing and self-righteous stance, in a manner which distances potential backers. Yet another often made observation is that most vocal and vehement are often those not directly associated with aid organizations or having a first hand experience with the situation. Most migrants/refugees/asylum seekers congregate at the less affluent areas, or work in a myriad "invisible" jobs - whereas many of those opposing the deportations are on the other side of the economic and social scale.

 

The problem stems, almost as always, from Israeli governments' tendency to avoid and delay dealing with problematic issues. Years of indecision then lead to a "crisis", which often defies the likelihood of a reasoned discussion, while serving as fertile grounds for populist (of whatever leaning) views.   

 

The construction of the border fence was a major factor dealing with the situation. Since then, it does not seem that figures of African migrants/refugees/asylum seekers increase significantly. As for handling those already in-country, IMO the mass deportations will not be fully possible as planned, now that recipient countries are backing off. More to do, I think, with these countries internal political struggles, and their reliance on other (beside Israel) international relations.

 

A better approach would be to continue offering incentives for those willing to leave. Considering the projected figures, it's financially viable, and with the arrivals influx down to a trickle (re border fence), it won't serve as a magnet for others. At the same time, expedite reviews of claims (and, as an aside - ascertain the status of all those many who made no claims). Deport or incarcerate those who do not answer the criteria, and allow the rest to remain - even if not on a full citizenship/permanent basis. Considering how Israeli governments reach decisions - I somehow doubt things will pan out in a rational, or even organized manner, though.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Don't what the current numbers are, but back in 2014 there were more illegal overstayers in Israel than Etrians and Sudanese asylum seekers. 

 

individuals travelling on a tourist visa beyond the date of expiration (around 90,000), 61% of whom are from the former Soviet Union

 

What do the two groups currently receive by way of government support, may have changed, but in 2014 it was severely limited.

 

not allow them access to formal work permits, health care or welfare services. Asylum seekers are stuck in a legal limbo; while being allowed to remain in the country, they lack access to basic services in order to survive, advance, and integrate.

 

http://assaf.org.il/en/content/introduction-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-israel

 

 

 

That is not completely correct, not even back when it was published. Most can get a work permit (even though many work illegally), health and education services are provided. That the actual application of these is less that perfect is another matter - but it's not quite as described, with regard to most.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

"Though it is a signatory to the convention, Israel has only recognised eight Eritrean and two Sudanese asylum seekers as refugees since 2009, according to UNHCR. Two hundred Sudanese refugees from the Darfur region were also granted humanitarian status.

 

Israel has pressured asylum seekers and refugees to leave the country for years, through a series of restrictive laws, the threat of arrest and detention at the Holot prison [contrary to Israel's own Supreme court ruling], and limits on their movement and access to employment and education.

 

According to Rozen, the government has maintained a policy that aims to make life in Israel so unbearable for asylum seekers that they choose to leave on their own."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-pushes-deport-asylum-seekers-rwanda-171121125548203.html

 

I assumed you were using the generic, impersonal pronoun "you" in your question "what else would you do with foreign criminals?", so I replied in similar vein. Maybe better if you use the pronoun "one" in future to avoid confusion and hurt sensitivities.

 

Quoting Al-Jazeera, owned by Qatar, on the subject of migrant/refugee/asylum seekers/foreign workers rights.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

"Though it is a signatory to the convention, Israel has only recognised eight Eritrean and two Sudanese asylum seekers as refugees since 2009, according to UNHCR. Two hundred Sudanese refugees from the Darfur region were also granted humanitarian status.

 

Israel has pressured asylum seekers and refugees to leave the country for years, through a series of restrictive laws, the threat of arrest and detention at the Holot prison [contrary to Israel's own Supreme court ruling], and limits on their movement and access to employment and education.

 

According to Rozen, the government has maintained a policy that aims to make life in Israel so unbearable for asylum seekers that they choose to leave on their own."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-pushes-deport-asylum-seekers-rwanda-171121125548203.html

 

I assumed you were using the generic, impersonal pronoun "you" in your question "what else would you do with foreign criminals?", so I replied in similar vein. Maybe better if you use the pronoun "one" in future to avoid confusion and hurt sensitivities.

When I used the pronoun "you" I did so accurately, asking you a question, which you declined to answer. From your indiscriminate use of it, I can only assume you are American.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your constant harping on on intentionally provocative and inflammatory comparisons aside, other than in your hyperbole posts, them migrants/refugees/asylum seekers do not face a Holocaust equivalent situation. Also, painting all of them as "people who flee war, torture, starvation and terror seeking protection and asylum" is a emotive generalization rather than fact. Some are, some are not. And getting into a country illegally is a crime, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

I paint the situation in Sudan and Eritrea as "war, torture, starvation and terror" because that's what it is. Or perhaps you don't get emotive about people suffering and are into Darfur denial.

 

>>Some are, some are not.
....well wouldn't it be a good idea to find out by actually treating people as individual human beings and processing their applications?

Edited February 6, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

There was no deflection, as I have addressed the OP and issues raised on other posts. Try harder. I am disputing some of the facts, and certainly much of the commentary presented on this topic- as indeed detailed in previous posts. I do think that calling out out using Qatar's Al-Jazeera as a source, in this instance, is odd, to say the least. IMO, it highlights that for some this isn't so much about the topic itself, but more  to do with the opportunity to go on the usual bash crusade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[halloween]

27 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Oh, sorry.

I'd imprison foreign criminals.

..except of course people who flee war, torture, starvation and terror seeking protection and asylum and register as refugees are not foreign criminals.

Question for you: Do you regard the millions of Jews who fled the Holocaust foreign criminals, who deserved to be locked up and deported back to where they came from?

 

The only criminals in this instance are the Israeli government, who are breaking international and Israeli law.

Until they are exposed as not being genuine refugees, but seeking material gain, when they become illegal immigrants - the epitome of foreign criminals.

Answer, yes. Where is the holocaust that the millions of Africans are fleeing, or did just want to throw in a straw argument?

 

Many countries are facing a huge influx of illegal immigrants posing as refugees, causing the host countries huge expense and social upheaval. Should we allow that to happen?

Edited February 6, 2018 by halloween

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

I paint the situation in Sudan and Eritrea as "war, torture, starvation and terror" because that's what it is. Or perhaps you don't get emotive about people suffering and are into Darfur denial.

 

>>Some are, some are not.
....well wouldn't it be a good idea to find out by actually treating people as individual human beings and processing their applications?

 

You do exactly what you complain about - assumed, unverified wide-brush assertions as to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers background and motivations. Bringing up Darfur is a good example of your "tactics" - in effect, a relatively small number of the Sudanese arrivals to Israel were related to Darfur. Find someone else to try your moralizing games on.

 

I have addressed the issue of processing and verifying individual claims in a previous post. No argument that it would have been a better way to go about things. Spinning it as if my positions is otherwise, not too surprising. And, of course, it does not make your own version of wholesale labeling attempt any more accurate.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You do exactly what you complain about - assumed, unverified wide-brush assertions as to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers background and motivations. Bringing up Darfur is a good example of your "tactics" - in effect, a relatively small number of the Sudanese arrivals to Israel were related to Darfur. Find someone else to try your moralizing games on.

 

I have addressed the issue of processing and verifying individual claims in a previous post. No argument that it would have been a better way to go about things. Spinning it as if my positions is otherwise, not too surprising. And, of course, it does not make your own version of wholesale labeling attempt any more accurate.

>>You do exactly what you complain about - assumed, unverified wide-brush assertions as to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers background and motivations. Bringing up Darfur is a good example of your "tactics" - in effect, a relatively small number of the Sudanese arrivals to Israel were related to Darfur. Find someone else to try your moralizing games on.

...any wide brush strokes you use are dripping with white wash (and cherry picking stains) in order to obfuscate.

 

Try the Times of Israel then to enlighten you about my apparently overly emotive description of the suffering the majority of asylum seekers are fleeing from. It's called compassion. Sort of makes us human.

 

Of the African refugees about 72 % are Eritrean and 20% Sudanese. (Israeli Interior Ministry figures)

 

"Eritrean asylum seekers have fled a harsh dictator and compulsory military service that can last for 40 years. Sudanese asylum seekers have fled genocide in Darfur as well as fighting between Sudan and South Sudan."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israels-new-plan-to-deport-africans-details-abound/

The EU has accepted asylum claims from 90% of Eritreans and 56% of Sudanese.
Israel's figures are:  one Sudanese and 10 Eritreans, out of thousands of applications i.e Israel's acceptance rate is  0.056%, according to the Hotline for Refugees and Migrant Workers.
(same Times of Israel source)

 

No country or people are immune from racism. The unseemly haste and harsh penalties Netanyahu is employing to get rid of these black faces (who are spoiling the neighborhood..same source)  suggests that Israelis are no exception. Not all of course. As I quoted earlier in the thread there are many decent Israelis from Holocaust survivors to El Al pilots who still have a conscience.

Edited February 6, 2018 by dexterm

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection/trolling posts and replies have been removed. 

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

Where have I employed wide brush strokes? I haven't. You did, even while haranguing other posters about doing the same. 

 

Your "argument" seems to alternate between a demand that claims should verified on an individual basis, and an assertion that all claims are justified (without the aforementioned verification process). Nothing in your replies seems to addresses this contradiction directly.

 

The number of Sudanese in Israel related to events in Darfur is between 2000-3500. Of these, about a 1000 were granted temporary residency status over the years. In your version, anyone hailing from Sudan is a Darfur refugee. Spot the difference. The Times of Israel article you linked does not quite support your wild emotive assertions. And, of course, the OP is not about deportations to Sudan (or for that matter, Eritrea).

 

As said in earlier posts - there is no denial some (or even many) of these people are genuine, but determining that they all went through what you allege is probably not the case. There was also no argument offered to support the Israeli government's handling of the situation, or justifying the rate at which applications are checked and approved, etc. If you cannot actually address the content of my posts, at least stop misrepresenting my position.

 

There was also no suggestion that racism is not a factor. But it's not the only ingredient, and simplistically tempting as it is, does not constitute a blanket argument. There are other actual issues, often those related to similar situations worldwide. Do save them morality lectures and pontificating about "compassion" for those impressed with faux indignation. And as for your pronunciations on Israelis (or presumably, anyone) not accepting your views as lacking a conscience, well done for making my point about generalizations.

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

Where have I employed wide brush strokes? I haven't. You did, even while haranguing other posters about doing the same. 

 

Your "argument" seems to alternate between a demand that claims should verified on an individual basis, and an assertion that all claims are justified (without the aforementioned verification process). Nothing in your replies seems to addresses this contradiction directly.

 

The number of Sudanese in Israel related to events in Darfur is between 2000-3500. Of these, about a 1000 were granted temporary residency status over the years. In your version, anyone hailing from Sudan is a Darfur refugee. Spot the difference. The Times of Israel article you linked does not quite support your wild emotive assertions. And, of course, the OP is not about deportations to Sudan (or for that matter, Eritrea).

 

As said in earlier posts - there is no denial some (or even many) of these people are genuine, but determining that they all went through what you allege is probably not the case. There was also no argument offered to support the Israeli government's handling of the situation, or justifying the rate at which applications are checked and approved, etc. If you cannot actually address the content of my posts, at least stop misrepresenting my position.

 

There was also no suggestion that racism is not a factor. But it's not the only ingredient, and simplistically tempting as it is, does not constitute a blanket argument. There are other actual issues, often those related to similar situations worldwide. Do save them morality lectures and pontificating about "compassion" for those impressed with faux indignation. And as for your pronunciations on Israelis (or presumably, anyone) not accepting your views as lacking a conscience, well done for making my point about generalizations.

 

>>Where have I employed wide brush strokes?
..You don't have to look far.... in fact it begins just 2 lines down from this your faux denial

"Your "argument" seems to alternate between a demand that claims should be verified on an individual basis, and an assertion that all claims are justified."
... Another of your lies. Put up or shut up. When have I ever said that all claims are justified?

Lies trip off your keyboard so easily, usually smothered in fence sitting language like "seems to" and quotation marks around the word argument.

 

Then you use numbers rather than percentages to distort facts followed by another wide brush stroke hyperbole: "In your version, anyone hailing from Sudan is a Darfur refugee." I didn't say that either.

 

And another wide brush stroke generalisation
>>As said in earlier posts - there is no denial some (or even many) of these people are genuine, but determining that they all went through what you allege is probably not the case.
..and there's the fence sitting language again "no denial" "some(or even many)" "allege" "probably not the case."

 

It would perhaps help you not to distort my posts if you actually quoted them, which you refuse to do since you regard yourself as somehow above forum rules.

 

Your whole prose style is wide brush strokes and waffle (your final para meaningless).

 

We agree on most issues in Israel's handling of the situation: some or even many are genuine refugees, poor processing, racism is involved. So you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, some sort of bizarre stalking.

 

Anyway, looks like Netanyahu's racist based illegal deportations is a vote winner. "Despite the condemnations, a Channel 10 poll released Sunday indicated that a majority of Israelis support expelling African migrants from the country."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israels-new-plan-to-deport-africans-details-abound/

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Are you for real?

 

You are the one who keeps applying generalizations, repeatedly alleging all the migrants/refugees/asylum seekers discussed along these lines - "all these human beings who have fled war, torture and death". Any opinion suggesting not all of them qualify is met with moralizing nonsense. This, while haranguing those offering opposite (and misguided ass well) generalizations. A rather lame attempt spinning the point made. Being filled with irrational, obsessive hatred is one thing, being as self-centered as to make this about you is another.

 

You keep referencing Darfur, in a manner which is applied as an overall justification for your position. You do not offer qualification of statements, you overreach. When this is pointed out, a tantrum ensues. Distortion? Percentages?What are you on about? No matter how you spin it - most of the Sudanese arrivals are not related to the issue of Darfur, and Darfur does not apply for all arrivals from Africa. Banging on this drum is the distortion.

 

I'm honestly not sure, nor care, what the tired old "fence sitting" nonsense is about this time. Not everyone shares your taste for extreme views and vehemence. Not everyone shares your obsession with denouncing Israel. It gets to the point that even criticizing Israel is denounced, if it's not harsh enough. Whatever.

 

For the umpteenth time - there is no requirement to quote the post replied to, stop making up forum rules and playing moderator. Your posts were not distorted, and I feel no obligation to inflict a double dose of your tirades on these topics. 

 

We may agree on some things, but we differ greatly when it comes to interpretation and commentary. Also, I reject your ongoing crusade, which revolves around obsessive denouncing of pretty much anything to do with Israel. As for the standard issue "stalking" accusation, the bizarre part is that you keep bringing it up, as if your posts cannot be commented on, or that participation in discussions is somehow tied with agreeing or rejecting your views. Not impressed.

 

And as usual, you part with a quoted bit, presented in a contrived way - without going into context. The article gives more information on said poll. For example, while 56% (vs. 32%) support deportation (as a general statement), this changes when asked about forced deportation (46% against, 44% support). Drawing a direct connection between these positions and the move being a "vote winner" is an over-simplification at best. And as the senior official in charge opines - not all those slated for deportation will actually be deported.

 

 

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Are you for real?

 

You are the one who keeps applying generalizations, repeatedly alleging all the migrants/refugees/asylum seekers discussed along these lines - "all these human beings who have fled war, torture and death". Any opinion suggesting not all of them qualify is met with moralizing nonsense. This, while haranguing those offering opposite (and misguided ass well) generalizations. A rather lame attempt spinning the point made. Being filled with irrational, obsessive hatred is one thing, being as self-centered as to make this about you is another.

 

You keep referencing Darfur, in a manner which is applied as an overall justification for your position. You do not offer qualification of statements, you overreach. When this is pointed out, a tantrum ensues. Distortion? Percentages?What are you on about? No matter how you spin it - most of the Sudanese arrivals are not related to the issue of Darfur, and Darfur does not apply for all arrivals from Africa. Banging on this drum is the distortion.

 

I'm honestly not sure, nor care, what the tired old "fence sitting" nonsense is about this time. Not everyone shares your taste for extreme views and vehemence. Not everyone shares your obsession with denouncing Israel. It gets to the point that even criticizing Israel is denounced, if it's not harsh enough. Whatever.

 

For the umpteenth time - there is no requirement to quote the post replied to, stop making up forum rules and playing moderator. Your posts were not distorted, and I feel no obligation to inflict a double dose of your tirades on these topics. 

 

We may agree on some things, but we differ greatly when it comes to interpretation and commentary. Also, I reject your ongoing crusade, which revolves around obsessive denouncing of pretty much anything to do with Israel. As for the standard issue "stalking" accusation, the bizarre part is that you keep bringing it up, as if your posts cannot be commented on, or that participation in discussions is somehow tied with agreeing or rejecting your views. Not impressed.

 

And as usual, you part with a quoted bit, presented in a contrived way - without going into context. The article gives more information on said poll. For example, while 56% (vs. 32%) support deportation (as a general statement), this changes when asked about forced deportation (46% against, 44% support). Drawing a direct connection between these positions and the move being a "vote winner" is an over-simplification at best. And as the senior official in charge opines - not all those slated for deportation will actually be deported.

 

 

The usual snide preamble.

Not sure what you are responding to with @dexterm. Most of your post is distorted paraphrase.

 

In reply to the one time you do quote me:
>>You are the one who keeps applying generalizations, repeatedly alleging all the migrants/refugees/asylum seekers discussed along these lines - "all these human beings who have fled war, torture and death"

 

So what have the refugees been fleeing from..any wars in those parts, torture, murders, 40 year compulsory military service you may have heard of lately? I am sure the refugees have not risked their lives undertaking a perilous journey across deserts evading traffickers and Egyptian and Israeli border patrols who sometimes shoot first ask questions later, just so that they can escape running a burger stand in Khartoum or Asmara in the hope of a franchise in Israel. Get real. Would you undertake such a risky journey just to become a what Netanyahu prejudges an economic infiltrator.?

 

Only to encounter a racist Israeli regime who treats them illegally like sub humans.

Edited February 6, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Obviously, my post is mostly a "distorted paraphrase" of your tirade. That you cannot reasonably address any form of criticism directed at your posts doesn't make your case.

 

As for the single relevant semi-relevant comment made above - thanks for making my point. I am not the one defining all these people as refugees, you are. I'm not the one ignoring some being work migrants or some facing hardship in their home countries, which do not necessarily answer criteria for the labels applied. Some are genuine (possibly even many) - definitely not all. That you, without any shred of support allege otherwise, is not convincing. It also makes your previously aired criticism of wholesale comments describing these people in a negative manner, in a ridiculous light. IMO, the dubious wholesale emotive labeling employed erodes the case for those who actually deserve to be better received.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense - I don't think that "shoot first, ask questions later" is an apt description with regard to IDF response to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers reaching the border or illegality crossing it. And again, that you are "sure" that there are no work migrants, or that anyone facing hardship is automatically entitled to something (such as being labeled a refugee or an asylum seeker) does  not make it so. Some are, some are not. Some deserve better, some do not.

 

People came because there was a possibility. Same way that they try making their way to Europe. Yet the fact that they are willing to face a difficult (and often dangerous) journey, does not automatically imply what you allege - not all those reaching Europe are recognized as refugees/asylum seekers, and this would apply with regard to those arriving at Israel as well. It is worth bearing in mind that most of the arrivals to Israel were in previous years - it was a shorter route, a cheaper one, and easy enough getting in. Once in, the risk of detention and deportation was low. As things changed (border fence erected, situation in the Sinai Peninsula deteriorating, detention center set and deportations becoming a reality), it became a less attractive destination.

 

Your last line is basically what you're about. It's not about the migrants/refugees/asylum seekers, but more to do with the obsessive crusade you're on. If your hate-filled hyperbole was on-mark, then as another poster questioned above - why would these people go to such a terrible place, and why would the likes of you wish for them to remain  there?

 

To quote from your post: "Get real".

[dexterm]

What an amazing irony. Israel was instrumental in the creation of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention as a result of the mistreatment of Jewish refugees escaping the Holocaust, outlining the future responsibilities of signatory countries. The very same convention Israel is now attempting to side step. Incredible.

 

"Israel was among the first signatories of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees – and for a very important reason.

 

Israel is a nation of refugees whom the rest of the world systemically rejected, humiliated, hunted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered for millennia.

 

Recognizing a perilous past few could understand, let alone survive, in 1951 Israel was among the first of 145 nations to sign the UN Convention on Refugees, which obligates it to make the asylum application process accessible and humane to those in life-threatening situations."

 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Why-Israel-should-reconsider-expelling-incarcerating-African-refugees-533194

 

So now Israel threatens imprisonment for black asylum seekers, but strangely treats white asylum seekers differently.

 

"The race question is also being raised because there are thousands of Eastern Europeans who have also entered the country illegally, but they are not being systematically targeted for deportation in the same way."

 

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-australia/explained-israel-s-mass-deportation-of-asylum-seekers-1.5792570

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The only "incredible" thing in this topic is the disproportion between your obsessive vehemence and the situation at hand. Continuously co-option or quoting opinion pieces does not make for a strong argument, just an emotive one. 

 

Considering your usual biased portrayals of Israel, and related one-sided pseudo-historical accounts it's quite amusing how, when circumstances demands, the former supposed invading colonial forces are now presented as refugees and asylum seekers.

 

Your hyperbole aside - detention, deportation and less than ideal treatment of migrants/refugees/asylum seekers is hardly unique to Israel. Some countries are better, some worse. The only reason for your over the top faux indignation and moralizing is that they serve your ongoing anti-Israel crusade. Nothing more.

 

 

[dexterm]

When the EU is accepting 90% of African asylum seeker applications and Israel less than 1% something does not add up... but it does when you consider that Israel's current racist right wing government is deliberately obstructing the asylum seekers applications simply because they are black and don't fit into Israel's purist demographics.

 

15,400 out of 38,000 have submitted claims for asylum since they were allowed to do so.  "Activists helping the asylum seekers say the reason so many have not
applied is that they do not trust the unit that examines asylum claims, and allege that less than a third of those claims have actually been reviewed. People complain that they spend hours in line (sometimes
even waiting overnight in order to be seen in the morning) to apply for asylum, only to be sent away without being able to file their claim."
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/asia-and-australia/explained-
israel-s-mass-deportation-of-asylum-seekers-1.5792570

 

The economics don't add up either. 

 

It cost Israel $94 million to build an open detention center, Holot, in the remote Negev desert and $70m pa to run it, where the detainees hang around unproductively because they have to report twice per day.
And it will cost them a lot more than that when they actually incarcerate 1,000s of Africans in 2 months time who refuse to be deported to a country where Israel admits they can't monitor or guarantee their safety.( http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Deputy-FM-says-Israel-cant-monitor-fate-of-African-deportees-540896)

 

Israel just spent $450million to build a border fence with Egypt. In 2017 there are no longer any Africans crossing. So 38,000 refugees (a mere 0.45% of Israel's population) are now self contained within Israel.  Israel's African so called "problem" ain't going to grow any worse.

 

At the moment Netanyahu's government is creating negative PR for toxic brand Israel that money couldn't buy. He has even upset some his country's most ardent overseas supporters.Wouldn't it make more economic and humanitarian sense to:

 

- Give the Africans temporary permits so that they can work legally, pay taxes, and contribute to their own upkeep - Money saved to employ more staff to process asylum claims more quickly to obtain onward countries for resettlement.  - up the offer to leave voluntarily to $5k plus

 

With these measures numbers would diminish considerably and Israel could gain some positive PR for a change for its humane treatment.   Gotta feeling Netanyahu is just going to continue scoring own goals though.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

When you claim (without citing a clear source) that the EU accepts "90% of African asylum seeker applications"  - what does that imply? That 90% of arrivals applied for asylum? That 90% of the applications were processed? That 90% of the applications were approved and refugee status granted? The 1% figure pitted against that (while hardly impressive or something for Israel to be proud about) related to latter. Is it your claim, them that 90% of the asylum seeker applications of Africans arriving at the EU have been accepted and refugee status granted? I'd be surprised if that's actually the case. As both articles you linked detail, there are actually other applicable categories with rights granted.

 

Citing the same articles, opinion column and journalists over and over again, does not make some of the claims raised any more coherent. If more than half didn't even apply for asylum, that sort of makes the overreaching claims about all of them being asylum seekers dubious. Some of the reasoning offered is similarly strange: not applying for asylum, because "they do not trust the unit that examines asylum seekers" doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

The problematic nature of economics related to dealing with migrant/refugee/asylum seeker issues is general, rather than being specific or unique to Israel. Detentions centers and refugee camps exist in many other countries, as well. Implying that there is a simple prescription which will make the "economics add up", is bogus - even if economics were the only relevant consideration, which is not the case, and never is.

 

The offered concern trolling stuff is unconvincing, and all the more ridiculous considering your usual stance with regard to Israel. But to address your nonsense anyway - many of the Africans in Israel do work, whether legally or with the authorities refraining from strict enforcement of the law. Taxes are collected, usually through taxing employers, as is the case with foreign workers. As for "money saved to employ more staff to more quickly to obtain onward countries for resettlement." - no idea what you imagined you meant by that, or how the two even relate. The assertion that their numbers would diminish following proscribed steps, relies on nothing much - on the contrary, one could easily assume that a more permanent status granted will be followed by requests to bring in family members left behind, and improved conditions serve as motivation to stay in-country, rather than leave.

 

 

[Scott]

Although the issue of African asylum seekers in Europe is straying a little far afield, here is a link that might provide some background:

 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-4