Dutch lawmaker tells migrants not to come to Netherlands

[masuk]

i don't understand all the fuzz

just make a law that people can only get benefits, when they WORKED legally, paying taxes in the country for many years for giving them gifts like : monthly allowance, same as a pensionner, free housing, free anything ...

for the boats used, what do they do with it afterwards ?

The boats were often close to falling apart. When they used to reach the coast, they were burned by the Government, apart from a couple in the Darwin Museum..

A few boat loads deliberately scuttled their boats as the RAN ships approached, and under maritime law, the people had to be rescued from the sea.

This was later overcome by supplying nice, new fully-equipped lifeboats, with enough fuel, food and water to allow them to return to Indonesia.

Some passengers reported that they were forced onto the boats at gunpoint by the local police in Eastern Indonesia, who must have been part of the smuggling ring.

In a country where it is very difficult to travel far without a police check, they somehow made it from Jakarta, across numerous islands, and then onto the boats.

[casindonet]

"Immigrants who are already legally in our countries, who keep to the law and assimilate into our culture, are welcome to stay and are equal to anybody else.

But to those who have crossed our borders illegally, want to wage jihad, put Sharia law above our laws, or commit violent crimes, we say loud and clear: Leave our country! You do not belong here!

And when jihadists want to leave our country, I say: Do not stop them, but let them leave! But let them never return. Never again."

Ref: Geert Wilders Weblog - Dresden Speech, 13 April 2015

I love this guy.....hope all leaders would make the same speech.

[Alwyn]

If the U.K. and the E.U. countries had any sense at all - they governments would simply declare a stoppage of all immigration except on a highly selective screening ... people who possess skills in science, engineering, etc., have a job offer, and who can contribute something to society besides living off the dole, protesting and demanding more rights and generally acting like asses in other peoples countries.

queue UKIP and Nigel Farage....

[Alwyn]

I think Holland is safe. I mean, who on earth would go their willingly? The Navies of Europe should patrol the coasts of Libya (and N Africa) when they come across a boat full of refugees, take the refugees on board and send the boat back. When the boat id a couple of miles away - blast it and it's crew out of the ocean.

But about these "refugees". What I see on the news are endless amounts of young, well-groomed families wearing good clothes that have paid up to £1500 per person, mostly Muslims. There could be a lot in it when people claim they are financial refugees.

[Steely Dan]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

PVV is far from the largest party in Holland. In some polls they do well from time to time, but in actual elections they don't. As such they currently represent about 8% of voters in the Dutch version of the lower house.

They poll far higher than 8% as you well know. This is from October last year. In spite of smears from liberal opposition it will become increasingly difficult for them to keep him out of government, especially with the current flare of the culture enriching contagion.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/10/gains_for_anti-islam_pvv_in_la/

[JDGRUEN]

Fully agree. And it is revealing that a hate monger like Wilders has in common with many Western/Australian politicians that they refuse the see the relation between cause and effect. Wilders decries radical Islamic extremism but never ever discusses its cause.

Ask Western/Australian lawmakers the following question: "Who was the first democratically elected leader of an Islamic country and how and why was he deposed?" I bet less than 3% of them would know the answer (Mossadegh of Iran in 1953, when southerm European countries were still fascist dictatorships).

The boy Wilders is preaching hate among us all over the world.

Blaming 'others' for big problems that can not be simplified by his rhetoric's.

We have seen that before.

In my opinion he and his 'believers' are potentially a bigger problem.

The cause is a fundamentalist belief in the Quran and that all but followers of Allah - must be converted or die as the infidels they are. It is not about jobs or inequality or poverty ... There are millions of impoverished non Muslims who do not go around terrorizing others. It is not about politics or past wars or past deposing of leaders,,, It is about a massive Cult like movement that uses religion as a foil - a socio-political Cult... Radical Islamists lead other Muslims around by the nose because they a too afraid to do otherwise for fear violating Islamic Holy Books and the teachings therein It is about domination of others as is taught in their Mosques - along with the hatred of all non Muslims. It is about covering the Earth with Muslims as a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Caliphate ... 1.5 Billion Muslims are not planning to dominate the world - but their radical leaders are and the masses of Muslims are quiet willing followers.

[thaibeachlovers]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

That's irrelevant. If they simply towed back the boats they intercept, leave only enough fuel to make it back to shore and cast them off just outside the Libyan sea border, the boats would stop coming as soon as the word got out. it's worked for Australia.

Rescuing them is only encouraging them to keep coming.

BTW, a recent boat came from Egypt, and that has a functioning government.

The west is under no obligation to take millions of people that come from countries that have overbred themselves into basket cases.

There would be a difference if they were fleeing foreign invasion or natural disaster, but they are not. They are trying to escape the consequences of their out of control breeding. When interviewed on tv they always say they are looking for work. Somehow, with Australia, the prospect of not being in a western country with cushy welfare and the right to bring their families over as well seems to be a disincentive.

If the Eurozone won't tow them back, then they should send them to a big camp in the Sahara. I'm sure Algeria would rent Europe a big bit of desert to use. Under refugee treaty arrangements, countries only have to keep them safe from persecution or starvation, not give them citizenship.

Edited April 23, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[Baerboxer]

If the U.K. and the E.U. countries had any sense at all - they governments would simply declare a stoppage of all immigration except on a highly selective screening ... people who possess skills in science, engineering, etc., have a job offer, and who can contribute something to society besides living off the dole, protesting and demanding more rights and generally acting like asses in other peoples countries.

The UK is a European Union country. (Currently).

[steven100]

These are the problems and issues ....

1. Radicals want to control the country so thats the start of refugees problems.

2. Governments and army's do nothing to stop this problem with radical groups. ( harsh penalty should apply to governments that don't resolve these problems. )

3. Refugees stuck in poor countries have no idea of family planning and contraceptives so they have 10 babies.

4. Refugees have to flee with there 10 kids because of fighting.

5. Other countries have to bear the costs and problems because the host country didn't effectively control or stop it.

My solution ...

I am sure there are large islands that are currently uninhabited ...

Start building cities on these uninhabited island .. I don't mean big construction .. I mean install sewerage systems, water plants, factories, agriculture, buses, semi construct roads for transport, cattle, grain, sheep vegetables.

Construction 1,000,000 portable cabins made from panel board or similar. Have them raised 1.0m and just a couple of small rooms.

Start an urban population to work and sustain a new life.

Each country would have to give say .. 500mill dollars to get it going and maybe support for services for the first year. But after that these refugees will support the city and support themselves..

This will enable more than 1,000,000 to have a better future.

Thats my solution, and I think it's the only solution.

Edited April 23, 2015 by steven100

[h90]

I wish Cameron would do the same.

I wish Fayman PM of Austria would do the same

[meltingpot2015]

Sensational Head-line grabbing news item.

headline says "...Migrants not to come to Netherlands", but the story then goes on to say that it's "boat migrants".

Best way to tackle the asylum seeker quandary is to form an international organization. Set quotas for each country to accept certain amount (minimum) of asylum seekers based on the country's capabilities (how they are doing economically).

Simply put, the asylum-seeker issue is currently way too Politicized.

Edited April 23, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[Anthony5]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

You forget that in Western societies like Holland, Belgium and I think France as well, immigrants get voting rights and even have their own political parties, which makes it next to impossible for a party like PVV to ever get a majority.

[Gulfsailor]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

You forget that in Western societies like Holland, Belgium and I think France as well, immigrants get voting rights and even have their own political parties, which makes it next to impossible for a party like PVV to ever get a majority.

You make it sound like the majority in Holland is an immigrant. Only naturalized immigrants have voting rights in Holland. I assume the same is the case in nearly all countries. That said the current percentage of non western immigrants (first and second generation) stands at around 10.

This discussion is not helped by making stuff up.

[Richard W]

There's a science fiction short story (I can't recall the name) by Larry Niven which describes a planet which, when viewed from space, shows each continent ringed by what looks like a black line. Upon closer inspection, those black lines are masses of people, all on the edge of survival, hanging out and dying by seashores. The only nutrition, is a bit found at the water's edge, enough for 1/100th the desperate billions amassed along those shores.

It's Bordered in Black. As far as we are told, the total population is stable, but all the time groups are losing the struggle for survival and larger groups split.

The Mote in God's Eye is a state of population boom and bust amongst the 'Moties', resulting from unconstrained breeding. Humans resort to killing Moties as soon as they leave their solar system, for fear of being overwhelmed.

[Biloger]

Years back, waves of chineese boat people started showing on Canadian coasts. They were put in hotel rooms and asked to show up at an interview later on. A lot never did and went underground. For many the final destination was USA.

The Canadian goverment complained and asked China to stop the boats before they leave.

The chineeses laughed and suggested Canada do the same as China: put illegal immigrants in jail. The next boat people arriving in Canada were put in jail. The word spreaded fast and no more boat people showed up on canadian coast.

[boomerangutang]

If the port/country they embarked from was safe enough for them to travel to making this journey

then it is safe enough for them to be returned to. The only way to end the migration is to not accept

the migrants in the first place. Rescue and return is the only way to stop this.

I agree, and it's not an easy problem to deal with. Obviously, if you or me met individuals who are so desperate to start new lives, we would probably like them as people, and feel compassion for them and their children. But policy should be led from the brain, not from the heart. It's rather like a large family, with a kid who's always in trouble. Naturally, the parents are going to be compelled to deal with the sickly, troublesome kid. Yet, it's to the detriment of the other members of the family. that's what's happening in Europe now. Dutch and other Europeans are having their tax Euros and massive amounts of resources put towards the needy people who show up on their doorsteps. It's out of kilter, and one of the outcomes will be increased numbers of enclaves controlled by Imans. It's predicted that Belgium will be the first European country to be politically controlled by Islamists and their Sharia Law. Maybe it won't be Belgium. Maybe it will be England, or Germany or France or Sweden or Denmark or Holland or Spainf ....? Regardless of who's the first, it's essentially inevitable, they'll fall, one by one.

Centuries ago, the Turks tried valiantly to invade and overthrow Europe. They got turned away and defeated by the Austrians. They lost those two wars, but now they (and their Islamic brethren) are occupying.

[simple1]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

That's irrelevant. If they simply towed back the boats they intercept, leave only enough fuel to make it back to shore and cast them off just outside the Libyan sea border, the boats would stop coming as soon as the word got out. it's worked for Australia.

Rescuing them is only encouraging them to keep coming.

BTW, a recent boat came from Egypt, and that has a functioning government.

The west is under no obligation to take millions of people that come from countries that have overbred themselves into basket cases.

There would be a difference if they were fleeing foreign invasion or natural disaster, but they are not. They are trying to escape the consequences of their out of control breeding. When interviewed on tv they always say they are looking for work. Somehow, with Australia, the prospect of not being in a western country with cushy welfare and the right to bring their families over as well seems to be a disincentive.

If the Eurozone won't tow them back, then they should send them to a big camp in the Sahara. I'm sure Algeria would rent Europe a big bit of desert to use. Under refugee treaty arrangements, countries only have to keep them safe from persecution or starvation, not give them citizenship.

Beg to differ. It is not irrelevant for the Indo govt to accept the boats turned around by the Oz govt, no way Oz would have done so without Indo collaboration. Probably the main contribution to stop the boats was the refusal to process any who reached Oz territory & instead ship them to offshore processing centres, then refusing entry to Oz, even those assessed as genuine refugees. There is no offshore processing centres or safe return available to those departing from Syria.

In today's news military action is being proposed to destroy shipping used by the people smugglers; no idea of the numbers of people in the current smuggling pipeline, tough luck I suppose with the very real threat of death.

Think you will find the majority of economic refugees come from countries with dictatorships in one form or another whose rulers, aside from political / religious oppression, are basically kleptomaniacs so no monies flowing to the general population. As far as I know birth rates are not a real issue as Muslim birth rates are declining.

A very recent Pew Reseach report claims from 2010 - 2050 globally Muslim birth rate will be 3.1, in comparison Christians will be 2.7.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Edited April 24, 2015 by simple1

[canman]

Fully agree. And it is revealing that a hate monger like Wilders has in common with many Western/Australian politicians that they refuse the see the relation between cause and effect. Wilders decries radical Islamic extremism but never ever discusses its cause.

Ask Western/Australian lawmakers the following question: "Who was the first democratically elected leader of an Islamic country and how and why was he deposed?" I bet less than 3% of them would know the answer (Mossadegh of Iran in 1953, when southerm European countries were still fascist dictatorships).

The boy Wilders is preaching hate among us all over the world.

Blaming 'others' for big problems that can not be simplified by his rhetoric's.

We have seen that before.

In my opinion he and his 'believers' are potentially a bigger problem.

The cause is clear to anyone who cares to look, islam. The effect is to wage war until all have been converted or submit. The side effect is export of radical islam to the west.

[seedy]

Posts Hidden / Edited for Troll / Flaming

[simple1]

Sensational Head-line grabbing news item.

headline says "...Migrants not to come to Netherlands", but the story then goes on to say that it's "boat migrants".

Best way to tackle the asylum seeker quandary is to form an international organization. Set quotas for each country to accept certain amount (minimum) of asylum seekers based on the country's capabilities (how they are doing economically).

Simply put, the asylum-seeker issue is currently way too Politicized.

UNHCR has this role & negotiates with governments to accept quotas for asylum seekers / refugees. Believe the current UNHCR vetted refugees resettled is less than 100k p.a. with an estimated 10 million refugees at risk by UNHCR. The 10 million excludes internally displaced refugees that is also in the millions. You can do the numbers for how long refugees will have to wait for resettlement through official channels if peace is not acheived in the conflict zones.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

[boomerangutang]

If family has a deadbeat head of household who mis-manages the household and makes little money, then the household members (wife, children, extended relatives) will suffer. If, on the same block, another family is well-run, and the head of household makes a decent salary, then the household members will be well-off.

Is the well-off well-administered family required to take in and support the family headed by the screw-up?

If it's small scale, it's fathomable. However, the whole dynamic can go off-kilter, and the poorly-administered families can over-run the well-administered families. It can get to the stage where the poor families EXPECT support.

Take it to another level: When the poor families get taken in by the well-off families, and then later - require their hosts to embrace their belief system, even if it treats women like chattel and cuts off children's hands for stealing candy. ....and takes a razor to cut off the clitorises of all the young girls.

[thaibeachlovers]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

That's irrelevant. If they simply towed back the boats they intercept, leave only enough fuel to make it back to shore and cast them off just outside the Libyan sea border, the boats would stop coming as soon as the word got out. it's worked for Australia.

Rescuing them is only encouraging them to keep coming.

BTW, a recent boat came from Egypt, and that has a functioning government.

The west is under no obligation to take millions of people that come from countries that have overbred themselves into basket cases.

There would be a difference if they were fleeing foreign invasion or natural disaster, but they are not. They are trying to escape the consequences of their out of control breeding. When interviewed on tv they always say they are looking for work. Somehow, with Australia, the prospect of not being in a western country with cushy welfare and the right to bring their families over as well seems to be a disincentive.

If the Eurozone won't tow them back, then they should send them to a big camp in the Sahara. I'm sure Algeria would rent Europe a big bit of desert to use. Under refugee treaty arrangements, countries only have to keep them safe from persecution or starvation, not give them citizenship.

Beg to differ. It is not irrelevant for the Indo govt to accept the boats turned around by the Oz govt, no way Oz would have done so without Indo collaboration. Probably the main contribution to stop the boats was the refusal to process any who reached Oz territory & instead ship them to offshore processing centres, then refusing entry to Oz, even those assessed as genuine refugees. There is no offshore processing centres or safe return available to those departing from Syria.

In today's news military action is being proposed to destroy shipping used by the people smugglers; no idea of the numbers of people in the current smuggling pipeline, tough luck I suppose with the very real threat of death.

Think you will find the majority of economic refugees come from countries with dictatorships in one form or another whose rulers, aside from political / religious oppression, are basically kleptomaniacs so no monies flowing to the general population. As far as I know birth rates are not a real issue as Muslim birth rates are declining.

A very recent Pew Reseach report claims from 2010 - 2050 globally Muslim birth rate will be 3.1, in comparison Christians will be 2.7.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

You have misread my post. I was referring to LIBYA, not Australia re turning the boats around.

Of course the offshore placement has worked for Oz. Corrupt Indo officials were a key component of the trafficking from Indonesia.

If people don't like their governments, do something about it, don't just run away and expect another country to sort out your problem.

2010 - 2050 globally Muslim birth rate will be 3.1, in comparison Christians will be 2.7.

So that's still too many. It should be 1 per family, like the Chinese. There is already 3 billion too many people on the planet.

All these problems are driven by human overpopulation. There was no trafficking problem in the 50s.

[simple1]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

That's irrelevant. If they simply towed back the boats they intercept, leave only enough fuel to make it back to shore and cast them off just outside the Libyan sea border, the boats would stop coming as soon as the word got out. it's worked for Australia.

Rescuing them is only encouraging them to keep coming.

BTW, a recent boat came from Egypt, and that has a functioning government.

The west is under no obligation to take millions of people that come from countries that have overbred themselves into basket cases.

There would be a difference if they were fleeing foreign invasion or natural disaster, but they are not. They are trying to escape the consequences of their out of control breeding. When interviewed on tv they always say they are looking for work. Somehow, with Australia, the prospect of not being in a western country with cushy welfare and the right to bring their families over as well seems to be a disincentive.

If the Eurozone won't tow them back, then they should send them to a big camp in the Sahara. I'm sure Algeria would rent Europe a big bit of desert to use. Under refugee treaty arrangements, countries only have to keep them safe from persecution or starvation, not give them citizenship.

Beg to differ. It is not irrelevant for the Indo govt to accept the boats turned around by the Oz govt, no way Oz would have done so without Indo collaboration. Probably the main contribution to stop the boats was the refusal to process any who reached Oz territory & instead ship them to offshore processing centres, then refusing entry to Oz, even those assessed as genuine refugees. There is no offshore processing centres or safe return available to those departing from Syria.

In today's news military action is being proposed to destroy shipping used by the people smugglers; no idea of the numbers of people in the current smuggling pipeline, tough luck I suppose with the very real threat of death.

Think you will find the majority of economic refugees come from countries with dictatorships in one form or another whose rulers, aside from political / religious oppression, are basically kleptomaniacs so no monies flowing to the general population. As far as I know birth rates are not a real issue as Muslim birth rates are declining.

A very recent Pew Reseach report claims from 2010 - 2050 globally Muslim birth rate will be 3.1, in comparison Christians will be 2.7.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

You have misread my post. I was referring to LIBYA, not Australia re turning the boats around.

Of course the offshore placement has worked for Oz. Corrupt Indo officials were a key component of the trafficking from Indonesia.

If people don't like their governments, do something about it, don't just run away and expect another country to sort out your problem.

2010 - 2050 globally Muslim birth rate will be 3.1, in comparison Christians will be 2.7.

So that's still too many. It should be 1 per family, like the Chinese. There is already 3 billion too many people on the planet.

All these problems are driven by human overpopulation. There was no trafficking problem in the 50s.

There was a number of issues with human trafficking in the 1950s, just didn't really impact Western countries e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery

Don't believe too many liked the Syrian regime and look what happened when they tried to sort out the problem with now an estimated 6+ million internally displaced plus over 3 million refugees; same circumstance applies to many African countries. What's the current death count in the Congo; 6+ million?

[Anthony5]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

You forget that in Western societies like Holland, Belgium and I think France as well, immigrants get voting rights and even have their own political parties, which makes it next to impossible for a party like PVV to ever get a majority.

You make it sound like the majority in Holland is an immigrant. Only naturalized immigrants have voting rights in Holland. I assume the same is the case in nearly all countries. That said the current percentage of non western immigrants (first and second generation) stands at around 10.

This discussion is not helped by making stuff up.

No I don't make it sound like that, however in France there are already a few major cities that are majority Muslim immigrants, and other countries follow quickly.

But now open you eyes, and engage brain. If 10% is immigrant, which I would like to see about some recent credible source, and there are 11 parties form which one is immigrant, which party will get the most votes?

[meltingpot2015]

Sensational Head-line grabbing news item.

headline says "...Migrants not to come to Netherlands", but the story then goes on to say that it's "boat migrants".

Best way to tackle the asylum seeker quandary is to form an international organization. Set quotas for each country to accept certain amount (minimum) of asylum seekers based on the country's capabilities (how they are doing economically).

Simply put, the asylum-seeker issue is currently way too Politicized.

UNHCR has this role & negotiates with governments to accept quotas for asylum seekers / refugees. Believe the current UNHCR vetted refugees resettled is less than 100k p.a. with an estimated 10 million refugees at risk by UNHCR. The 10 million excludes internally displaced refugees that is also in the millions. You can do the numbers for how long refugees will have to wait for resettlement through official channels if peace is not acheived in the conflict zones.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

You cannot just say "asylum seeker/refugee" and hope that they are the same. If you are sure that the UNHCR negotiates both Asylum Seeker and Refugee Numbers with countries, please reply with the website links, so we are aware of these.

A Country can be great at resettling REFUGEES, but not so good at accepting asylum seekers. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia

Check the linked documents [8] and [10] - http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/130719_GlobalStats.pdf

GLobal rankings for resettlement of refugees - Australia are 3rd Overall, 2nd per capita and 2nd relative to GDP

but when the asylum seeker process and resettlement of refugees are considered together Australia is 22 on the list on a per capita basis.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/130719_GlobalStats.pdf

As the link you send says UNHCR only plays a small part for Resettlement. Only 1%.

Of the 10.5 million refugees of concern to UNHCR around the world, only about 1 per cent are submitted by the agency for resettlement.

By having resettlement programs like the one with Cambodia, Australia can "resettle" many refugees, (By the way, the UNHCR does not approve deals like the Australia-Cambodia resettlement program. Actually come to think of it is probably illegal under international law) this will serve to clear any resettlement backlogs they have.

But It does not improve the asylum seeker process. e.g. the number of asylum seekers that are accepted to start with. If you have boat-towbacks, then this affects the asylum seeker process. Genuine refugees could be towed back to their unsafe country of origin, because they were not processed adequately or sufficiently. You hear of Asylum seekers being processed onboard Australian navy vessels. Some asylum seeks have had to wait years in detention for their asylum applications to be processed. The maximum time is 6 years, I remember reading. So are we saying that that same process could be done on board a navy vessel at deep sea in minutes, when the refugee has just fled life threatening incidents in their country of origin and may well be in a confused and vulnerable state (they may be suspicious of officers in uniform due to what they have experienced recently). The processing onboard the navy vessels is called "screening", more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited April 25, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[Gulfsailor]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

You forget that in Western societies like Holland, Belgium and I think France as well, immigrants get voting rights and even have their own political parties, which makes it next to impossible for a party like PVV to ever get a majority.

You make it sound like the majority in Holland is an immigrant. Only naturalized immigrants have voting rights in Holland. I assume the same is the case in nearly all countries. That said the current percentage of non western immigrants (first and second generation) stands at around 10.

This discussion is not helped by making stuff up.

No I don't make it sound like that, however in France there are already a few major cities that are majority Muslim immigrants, and other countries follow quickly.

But now open you eyes, and engage brain. If 10% is immigrant, which I would like to see about some recent credible source, and there are 11 parties form which one is immigrant, which party will get the most votes?

Don't know about other countries, but Holland had a Muslim party formed in 2007. They joined several municipal elections but didn't get a seat in any. Party was dissolved in 2012. Current Muslim population is just under 5%. Most immigrants pick one of the social democrat parties. So your worry in regards to all immigrants choosing an immigrant party is not necessary as far as it goes for Holland.

[Gulfsailor]

Geert Wilders PVV are the largest party in Holland. Anti-immigration parties are indeed riding high throughout Europe to the degree that coalitions of minority parties are colluding to keep them out of power, as is the case with Sweden. Thankfully we are rapidly reaching the stage where the will of the majority will finally gain control of policy, only then will the party end for the people smugglers and colonizers from a hostile alien ideology.

You forget that in Western societies like Holland, Belgium and I think France as well, immigrants get voting rights and even have their own political parties, which makes it next to impossible for a party like PVV to ever get a majority.

You make it sound like the majority in Holland is an immigrant. Only naturalized immigrants have voting rights in Holland. I assume the same is the case in nearly all countries. That said the current percentage of non western immigrants (first and second generation) stands at around 10.

This discussion is not helped by making stuff up.

No I don't make it sound like that, however in France there are already a few major cities that are majority Muslim immigrants, and other countries follow quickly.

But now open you eyes, and engage brain. If 10% is immigrant, which I would like to see about some recent credible source, and there are 11 parties form which one is immigrant, which party will get the most votes?

Still making stuff up... There is no Muslim majority city in France. Marseille has the most Muslims of any western European city with estimates ranging from 30% to 40%. Could be Muslim majority in the future, but isn't yet today.

[thaibeachlovers]

Sensational Head-line grabbing news item.

headline says "...Migrants not to come to Netherlands", but the story then goes on to say that it's "boat migrants".

Best way to tackle the asylum seeker quandary is to form an international organization. Set quotas for each country to accept certain amount (minimum) of asylum seekers based on the country's capabilities (how they are doing economically).

Simply put, the asylum-seeker issue is currently way too Politicized.

UNHCR has this role & negotiates with governments to accept quotas for asylum seekers / refugees. Believe the current UNHCR vetted refugees resettled is less than 100k p.a. with an estimated 10 million refugees at risk by UNHCR. The 10 million excludes internally displaced refugees that is also in the millions. You can do the numbers for how long refugees will have to wait for resettlement through official channels if peace is not acheived in the conflict zones.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

You cannot just say "asylum seeker/refugee" and hope that they are the same. If you are sure that the UNHCR negotiates both Asylum Seeker and Refugee Numbers with countries, please reply with the website links, so we are aware of these.

A Country can be great at resettling REFUGEES, but not so good at accepting asylum seekers. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia

Check the linked documents [8] and [10] - http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/130719_GlobalStats.pdf

GLobal rankings for resettlement of refugees - Australia are 3rd Overall, 2nd per capita and 2nd relative to GDP

but when the asylum seeker process and resettlement of refugees are considered together Australia is 22 on the list on a per capita basis.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/mr/130719_GlobalStats.pdf

As the link you send says UNHCR only plays a small part for Resettlement. Only 1%.

Of the 10.5 million refugees of concern to UNHCR around the world, only about 1 per cent are submitted by the agency for resettlement.

By having resettlement programs like the one with Cambodia, Australia can "resettle" many refugees, (By the way, the UNHCR does not approve deals like the Australia-Cambodia resettlement program. Actually come to think of it is probably illegal under international law) this will serve to clear any resettlement backlogs they have.

But It does not improve the asylum seeker process. e.g. the number of asylum seekers that are accepted to start with. If you have boat-towbacks, then this affects the asylum seeker process. Genuine refugees could be towed back to their unsafe country of origin, because they were not processed adequately or sufficiently. You hear of Asylum seekers being processed onboard Australian navy vessels. Some asylum seeks have had to wait years in detention for their asylum applications to be processed. The maximum time is 6 years, I remember reading. So are we saying that that same process could be done on board a navy vessel at deep sea in minutes, when the refugee has just fled life threatening incidents in their country of origin and may well be in a confused and vulnerable state (they may be suspicious of officers in uniform due to what they have experienced recently). The processing onboard the navy vessels is called "screening", more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If the UNHCR goes to Tony and says it is illegal, I hope he invites them to resettle the entire 17 million or so illegal would be immigrants in their own towns.

Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? Ban Ki Moon is just a joke running round the world wringing his hands at the latest outbreak of violence.

[simple1]

If the UNHCR goes to Tony and says it is illegal, I hope he invites them to resettle the entire 17 million or so illegal would be immigrants in their own towns.

Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? Ban Ki Moon is just a joke running round the world wringing his hands at the latest outbreak of violence.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Off topic. UNHCR has already stated Oz asylum / refugee policy does not comply. However, the previous Oz Immi Minister made it clear during Parliamentry Question Time that as a matter of policy Oz is no longer bound to the UN Convention for Refugees, only Oz border control / Immi legislation.

Edited April 25, 2015 by simple1

[meltingpot2015]

If the UNHCR goes to Tony and says it is illegal, I hope he invites them to resettle the entire 17 million or so illegal would be immigrants in their own towns.

Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? Ban Ki Moon is just a joke running round the world wringing his hands at the latest outbreak of violence.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Off topic. UNHCR has already stated Oz asylum / refugee policy does not comply. However, the previous Oz Immi Minister made it clear during Parliamentry Question Time that as a matter of policy Oz is no longer bound to the UN Convention for Refugees, only Oz border control / Immi legislation.

Off topic: So, the Australian Minister for Border Protection is no longer Scott Morrison?. I remember he once made a Freudian slip (a Gaffe) live on TV. He called Operation Sovereign Borders, Operation Sovereign Murders!.

Anyway, when you are signatory to a convention, you cannot just pick and choose when you are part of it depending on which way the wind blows. It has knock-on effects on how Australia is seen in the international community. Within Australia, it may not be enough just for the Minister to announce that "we are no longer bound by the UN Convention for Refugees".

By the way, the High Court of Australia once ruled that Scott Morrison's Cap (limit) on Refugee Protection Visas (for boat arrivals) was invalid:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-rules-against-scott-morrisons-refugee-protection-visa-cap-20140620-3ajpx.html

Edited April 25, 2015 by meltingpot2015