Boat people grateful for sanctuary, baffled by Gambia offer

[steven100]

I'm sure they'll love Gambia .... nice friendly neighbors to chat with. Muslim country so they will get on well.

All aboard ..... this boat is leaving for Gambia .....

nice fat cheque for Gambia .... all ended well I'd say ....

[kiwikeith]

"surely"... an utmost ignorant comment for somebody who has worked in Myanmar and is able to read non-burmese news

I stand by my comment. The Rohingya community are in no position to pick and choose their final destination. If it is a choice of being terrorised and killed in Myanmar, or having a safe but perhaps hard and economically poor life in Gambia, then Gambia it is.

Beggers definitely cannot be choosers.

Let's be realistic here. There is no way on earth that developed countries are going to open their doors to anything but a few, genuine refugees. If Gambia is willing to accept large numbers of Rohingya, then that is a very positive step forward.

Is there corruption, poverty, unjustness in Gambia? I am 100% sure of that. But it has to be a better future than what the Rohingya community is experiencing right now.

It is because I have worked in Myanmar that I believe 100% that the Myanmar government and especially the Buddhist, Burman majority will never accept the Rohingya into their communities. The answer lies outside Myanmar.

The Gambian dictator has offered to set up refugee camps for Rohingya, whilst asking for material assistance from other countries, not resettlement. Whilst something is better than nothing, Indonesia and Malaysia seem to have offered the same temporary 'solution' which appears to be more acceptable, less risk & transparent pathway for the Rohingya given the documented severe human rights abuses in Gambia.

5000 boat people fled Gambia for Europe in the last 12 months-- The Gambian dictator is assured USA assistance, which means money $$$ going to who? the wrong pockets I bet.(because this is the usual case undeniable )

Will they be better off? probably all sorts of terrible things will happen to these people after they settle.

Ban Ki Moon has stuck his useless hand up as well.

I bet they will end up trafficked again , become sex slaves and servants.

Everywhere the USA puts it's sticky fingers ends up total chaos.

Maybe Obama is after brownie points as well.

Out of approx. 82 billion $$ aid to Afghanistan about 1 billion reached the famished, the rest went into corrupt hands and was spent on guns.

I rest my case.

[simon43]

I do not believe for one second that other ASEAN, the USA or EU countries are willing to accept huge numbers of Rohingya and Bangladeshis, the vast majority who - IMHO - will be economic migrants, not genuine refugees fleeing from Myanmar. Small numbers of refugees yes, but a trickle of refugees will turn into a river of economic migrants.

Question - How do you differentiate between a Rohingya refugee and a Bangladeshi migrant? The answer is that the Bangladeshi lives on the west bank of the Naaf River and the Rohingya lives on the east bank of the same river.

You can bet your bottom $ that every Bangladeshi migrant will claim to be a Rohingya refugee.

I'm sure Gambia is also in it for the money. But this is a harsh world and their offer seems a viable option, especially when you consider the long-term effects of attempted mass migration of economic migrants to Malaysia, Indonesia etc etc

[tifino]

Gambia just wants to increase their pool of available child-brides, that are also still virginal

[Naam]

I do not believe for one second that other ASEAN, the USA or EU countries are willing to accept huge numbers of Rohingya and Bangladeshis, the vast majority who - IMHO - will be economic migrants, not genuine refugees fleeing from Myanmar. Small numbers of refugees yes, but a trickle of refugees will turn into a river of economic migrants.

Question - How do you differentiate between a Rohingya refugee and a Bangladeshi migrant? The answer is that the Bangladeshi lives on the west bank of the Naaf River and the Rohingya lives on the east bank of the same river.

You can bet your bottom $ that every Bangladeshi migrant will claim to be a Rohingya refugee.

I'm sure Gambia is also in it for the money. But this is a harsh world and their offer seems a viable option, especially when you consider the long-term effects of attempted mass migration of economic migrants to Malaysia, Indonesia etc etc

more assumptions pulled out of thin air.

[steven100]

of coarse Gambia is in it for the $$$ .... continuous aid $$

Edited May 23, 2015 by steven100

[simon43]

more assumptions pulled out of thin air.

We can agree to our difference of opinions. Let's wait a year or so and see how the settlements in Malyasia, Indonesia and 'western' countries have gone.

Sometimes, the most realistic solution to a problem is hard to accept....

[jpinx]

The Gambia is patently obviously not a solution being half way around the world. They have already stated that their "help" is conditional on western aid to pay for everything -- and a skim off is guaranteed - I've lived and worked there and I've seen them in action.

Naam makes a good point -- too many pontificates in here who do not actually have any first hand experience.

[simon43]

The Gambia is patently obviously not a solution being half way around the world

I'm not sure what distance has to do with resettlement..... I seem to recall that transport planes were developed some years ago.

If it is almost impossible to differentiate genuine refugees from economic migrants, let the acid test be the opportunity to be relocated in a relatively safe but 'third-world' African country. That is perhaps the most realistic way to identify refugee from economic migrant.

[Robby nz]

Good choice Gambia.

Then East across Senegal and north through Mali and Algeria and on a boat across the med to Europe then they are in paradise on the tax payers back without having to die for it.

Take them a year or two but what the heck.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

I am a little confused; is Gambia offering to resettle them or is it offering them temporary asylum awaiting resettlement?

Financial aid is usually given to help those needing temporary asylum. Once resettled, I don't think the international community is going to be quite so willing to give financial assistance.

[jpinx]

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

I am a little confused; is Gambia offering to resettle them or is it offering them temporary asylum awaiting resettlement?

Financial aid is usually given to help those needing temporary asylum. Once resettled, I don't think the international community is going to be quite so willing to give financial assistance.

Regimes such as that thrive on confusion, but end-game is always the same...$$$$

I read somewhere else that The Gambia is talking about providing a place for resettlement camps - in other words they have lots of hinterland not being used for anything In the same article it mentioned that The Gambia would be looking for international support for the "plan". Resettling these migrants requires a destination and that is the nub of the whole question of "saving the migrants".

Simon talks about differentiating between different "types" of migrants, but the reality is that a boat overloaded with hundreds of starving "migrants" are effectively stateless, mostly by their own choice -- albeit having been tempted and brainwashed by the people-smugglers. To try and pigeon-hole such people by virtue of "why are they on the boat" is as impossible as it is pointless. Look at the situation in the Med nowadays where the flow is continuous and impossible to stem. Now they are talking about destroying the boats the people smugglers use, but that will only mean more boats will get stolen. The solutions lie at the point of origin, but there is virtually zero willingness to force the regimes to stop the exodus. The migrants have no monetary value to the country they are coming from, so there is no incentive for them to be prevented from leaving.

Edited May 23, 2015 by jpinx

[ginbkk]

"Everything will be better now. People in Arakan are tortured continuously and they will keep on coming," he added, referring to the Rohingya’s home state of Rakhine in western Myanmar.

That is the scary bit and has been predicted......"They will keep on coming"

Could it be that Thailand has the right idea ?

Most scary part when you accept illegal migrants...

[Johnny S]

In Gambia they would be closer to crossing the Mediterranean Sea to go for the BIG Jackpot in Northern Europe : Social Service check every month and get a prize for every child born and best thing is ... you dont have to Work another day in your life - that is untill the economy collapse in Europe ...

[steven100]

ENJOY PACIFIC leaving for Gambia at 1300hrs ..... all aboard !!! all aboard !!

[simple1]

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

I am a little confused; is Gambia offering to resettle them or is it offering them temporary asylum awaiting resettlement?

Financial aid is usually given to help those needing temporary asylum. Once resettled, I don't think the international community is going to be quite so willing to give financial assistance.

Having read the press release offering to resettle. However not a good place with extensive human rights abuse. You might be interested to note not gay friendly - President proclaimed...

If you do it [in Gambia] I will slit your throat," Jammeh said. "If you are a man and want to marry another man in this country and we catch you, no one will ever set eyes on you again, and no white person can do anything about it."

[JoeLing]

Muhammad Jaber, a 27-year-old Rohingya, was another migrant who was puzzled when confronted with the idea of going to live in a country thousands of miles away that he knew nothing about.

However, he concluded: "If it is a Muslim country and they accept us as their citizens, why not?"

Wow ... Beggars can be choosers I see ... Typical muslim behaviour, let him rot ...

Beggars? You call refugees beggars?

Pretty derogate and insulting considering the Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein,

Lords Saatchi and Saatchi, Sigmund Freud, Jacky Chan, Bob Marley,

Freddy Mercury and many more from all corners of the world where all

refugees too!

The beggar Madeleine Korbel Albright even became the first female Secretary

of State in the US.

Just wonder what do you consider yourself?

[simple1]

Muhammad Jaber, a 27-year-old Rohingya, was another migrant who was puzzled when confronted with the idea of going to live in a country thousands of miles away that he knew nothing about.

However, he concluded: "If it is a Muslim country and they accept us as their citizens, why not?"

Wow ... Beggars can be choosers I see ... Typical muslim behaviour, let him rot ...

Why get hung up on whether its a Muslim Country or not? A non-Muslim Country can be changed to one by mass immigration, coercion, threats, the setting up of no go zones under Sharia law. The locals are then free to convert, leave or become second class citizens in their own land. Look at Sweden to see what can be achieved.

Off topic never ending BS.

"It should also be made clear that this report refers to criminal gangs seizing control; the kind of shariah-ruled, muslim-only enclaves Steve Emerson was talking about in Britain and France do not exist in Sweden.

The Swedish police recently released a map of 55 areas where they publicly admit to having surrendered control to the criminal gangs"

http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/swedish-police-55-official-no-go-zones/

The myth of no-go areas...

The darling of Muslim vilification groups, Daniel Pipes stated:

"For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe, too, but there things look fine … hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails. … Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go ones,"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth

MODS: if you remove this post kindly also delete the opinionated Muslim vilification / hate posts in this topic.

Edited May 23, 2015 by simple1

[Scott]

Refugees are a type of immigrant, so it is not uncommon for people to put them in the same category. Urban slums, no go zones and ethnic enclaves are a complex social construct with many possible causes. Uncontrolled immigration can lead to numerous social problems. Refugees, as a general rule, are a part of controlled immigration and countries have the opportunity to set up programs and to admit refugees in a controlled fashion.

The Rohinghyas, like many refugees will be in need of special services for integration. I am guessing that they are largely not a well educated group and their exposure to the outside world has been limited. If they are resettled in Western countries, they will not generally have large communities of existing Rohyingas in which to live. Resettlement countries are going to have to provide them with job opportunities, but those jobs are going to largely be at the unskilled level.

This topic, however, is not so much about existing problems with other groups, but the immediate situation of the boat people. We should stick more closely to that topic.

[NeverSure]

"surely"... an utmost ignorant comment for somebody who has worked in Myanmar and is able to read non-burmese news

I stand by my comment. The Rohingya community are in no position to pick and choose their final destination. If it is a choice of being terrorised and killed in Myanmar, or having a safe but perhaps hard and economically poor life in Gambia, then Gambia it is.

Beggers definitely cannot be choosers.

Let's be realistic here. There is no way on earth that developed countries are going to open their doors to anything but a few, genuine refugees. If Gambia is willing to accept large numbers of Rohingya, then that is a very positive step forward.

Is there corruption, poverty, unjustness in Gambia? I am 100% sure of that. But it has to be a better future than what the Rohingya community is experiencing right now.

It is because I have worked in Myanmar that I believe 100% that the Myanmar government and especially the Buddhist, Burman majority will never accept the Rohingya into their communities. The answer lies outside Myanmar.

You're joking, right? The GDP per capita in Gambia is $US 510.

Thailand is $US 5,480.

Malaysia $10,440

The USA $51,500

[Berkshire]

More than 5000 migrants many from Gambia have died in the last 12 months trying to flee to Europe.

The Gambian president Yahya Jammeh is delighted to take these people. source (The Guardian)

The United States will provide assistance. $$$$$$ say no more.

Pretty much my thoughts. Gambia will get big money from the international community (read USA). They'll put on a good show, welcome the migrants with open arms, put the migrants in prison....ehhh, refugee camps, institute a policy of neglect, and count the money as it pours in. The Rohingyas won't see a dime of this money.

[simon43]

You're joking, right? The GDP per capita in Gambia is $US 510.

Well, that supports my previous comments. Are these boat people looking for a safe haven or an easy ticket out of poverty?

They have the misfortune of birth to live in a very poor country (Bangladesh or Myanmar). Boat people cannot claim refugee or asylum status because they are in poverty - the requirements to make a claim are laid down (concerning political, religious persecution etc).

[simple1]

You're joking, right? The GDP per capita in Gambia is $US 510.

Well, that supports my previous comments. Are these boat people looking for a safe haven or an easy ticket out of poverty?

They have the misfortune of birth to live in a very poor country (Bangladesh or Myanmar). Boat people cannot claim refugee or asylum status because they are in poverty - the requirements to make a claim are laid down (concerning political, religious persecution etc).

Well the criteria for refugee status you mention certainly include the Rohingya and some groups in Bangladesh

[giddyup]

You're joking, right? The GDP per capita in Gambia is $US 510.

Well, that supports my previous comments. Are these boat people looking for a safe haven or an easy ticket out of poverty?

They have the misfortune of birth to live in a very poor country (Bangladesh or Myanmar). Boat people cannot claim refugee or asylum status because they are in poverty - the requirements to make a claim are laid down (concerning political, religious persecution etc).

Economic refugees as opposed to political refugees.This is why Australia has been so high on the list for people smugglers. Free medical, free housing and a very generous welfare system that basically allows refugees to sit on easy street for the rest of their lives. Gambia just doesn't cut the mustard.

[simon43]

Well the criteria for refugee status you mention certainly include the Rohingya and some groups in Bangladesh

I totally agree with you. But it seems that these boats include those who are neither Rohingya refugees, nor Bangladeshi refugees, but Bangladeshi economic migrants.

I don't envy the organisation who has to sort out genuine refugees from economic migrants,

[Scott]

The people who do the sorting are pretty experienced at it. It is a quasi-legal process and it involves objective and subjective information about their claim.

Refugee claims usually need to be verified based on existing knowledge about the conditions inside the country.

Refugee status can be granted because of one particular thing -- such as jail/torture for disagreeing with the gov't etc, or it can be cumulative discrimination that amounts to persecution.

I think the regional countries will be pretty quick to repatriate the economic migrants.

[JoeLing]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or
exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the
ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to
take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as
Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to
more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the
most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those
5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or
Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees
from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing
their homeland.

Edited May 24, 2015 by JoeLing

[JoeLing]

Well the criteria for refugee status you mention certainly include the Rohingya and some groups in Bangladesh

I totally agree with you. But it seems that these boats include those who are neither Rohingya refugees, nor Bangladeshi refugees, but Bangladeshi economic migrants.

I don't envy the organisation who has to sort out genuine refugees from economic migrants,

Sure there might be some black sheep in between the genuine refugees

as much as there are foreign criminals in between all the tourists arriving

in Thailand.

Should Thailand now refuse entry to all foreigners because of those few

undesirables?

[Steely Dan]

"surely"... an utmost ignorant comment for somebody who has worked in Myanmar and is able to read non-burmese news

I stand by my comment. The Rohingya community are in no position to pick and choose their final destination. If it is a choice of being terrorised and killed in Myanmar, or having a safe but perhaps hard and economically poor life in Gambia, then Gambia it is.

Beggers definitely cannot be choosers.

Let's be realistic here. There is no way on earth that developed countries are going to open their doors to anything but a few, genuine refugees. If Gambia is willing to accept large numbers of Rohingya, then that is a very positive step forward.

Is there corruption, poverty, unjustness in Gambia? I am 100% sure of that. But it has to be a better future than what the Rohingya community is experiencing right now.

It is because I have worked in Myanmar that I believe 100% that the Myanmar government and especially the Buddhist, Burman majority will never accept the Rohingya into their communities. The answer lies outside Myanmar.

You're joking, right? The GDP per capita in Gambia is $US 510.

Thailand is $US 5,480.

Malaysia $10,440

The USA $51,500

Sounds like a case of out of the frying pan and into the cooking pot.

[Scott]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to

take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as

Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to

more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the

most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those

5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or

Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees

from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing

their homeland.

Many of those countries do, indeed, allow large numbers of people to remain in their countries. Most do not have any plan to resettle them and some are housed in refugee camps with restricted movement.

But accusing many of those countries of being unhelpful is wrong.