German county declares refugee emergency

[simple1]

^^^ They are called economic migrants because they are migrating for economic benefit - reaching wealthier countries. This is opposed to refugees who need asylum from danger. Refugees are supposed to stop at the first safe country they enter.

Most of these people aren't refugees.

Cheers.

For many of them, the first country which is a full signatory to the UN conventions on Refugees is a European country. Turkey is not a signatory to the conventions, and abides by only a select few. They apply geographic limitations on the UN Conventions. Only people from Europe, fleeing to Turkey, can be given refugee status. This was, in part, to provide protection to those fleeing the Balkan war.

If you are coming from Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, you may have few options for safety but to head to somewhere such as Europe. There aren't a lot of countries in the vicinity that are signatories to the UN Conventions.

Neighboring countries are providing a safe-haven for hundreds of thousands of people, but they are not necessarily afforded the ability of being screened for refugee status and they are not guaranteed safety. The situation is not unlike the one in Thailand where they may let them stay or they may not.

There is no doubt that those arriving in Europe are a mix, but unless/until they are screened, it cannot be definitively said that they are not refugees.

I doubt anyone knows what percentage of them are Syrians. Many left their home countries as economic opportunists and were never refugees or Syrians.

Once a true refugee reaches safety he's supposed to stop. Paying big money to move far North for perceived economic benefit isn't about refugees.

Have you noticed from myriad and random pictures on the news how many of these people are young and healthy looking men? From what I can see, I see a majority of them.

To say this won't end well for Europe is a classic understatement.

The discussion of refugee vs. economic migrant is not an either or situation. They may be both. Whether they are Syrian, Iraqi or Afghani, they may still be refugees. My point is simply that these people must be screened to determine who is eligible for resettlement and who can and should be returned.

Historically, the mass migration of people, for whatever reason is led by men first and women follow later. As a very, very general rule, women are less likely to face direct persecution than male members of a family. Once the male member arrives somewhere safe, it is likely that the female members will follow. When you see larger numbers of women coming, then you can be assured the routes have been secured and there is a process in place to facilitate larger scale transport of people. In most cases this is facilitated by human traffickers.

The large numbers of people exiting these countries puts huge pressure on neighboring countries which may be willing to house them, however, they do not agree to provide them screening and they do not adhere to the UN protocols on Refugees and with it the safeguards that need to be in place. Recent examples can be seen in Thailand where a few years ago, the Hmong were returned to Laos and several months ago, the Uighur were returned to China, with a few being allowed to move to Turkey. Refugees in the ME remain at the political whim of the local country.

I have worked with various groups of people and have seen situations where 90+% of those fleeing were genuine refugees and other places where 90+% were not genuine refugees.

No doubt many of the people fleeing these areas are facing danger, but danger is not persecution. Persecution is when the existing gov't refuses to provide protection for its citizens. Many of these people are externally displaced people and once the situation is stabilized, they should be able to return, depending on the outcome. If they are supporters of the Assad gov't and he remains in power, they may not be able to return. Conversely, if an opposition party takes control, members of the Assad regime may end up being the real refugees, although it is usually easier to work with a new gov't, which is keen to solidify power and willing to accept international aide under the condition that they treat all citizens well.

Europe is going to learn a valuable lesson about keeping their mouths shut and their borders secure. Screening is best conducted by the UN outside of the resettlement countries. Once they set foot in a resettlement country, repatriation is difficult and a long, legal process.

Until there is active and objective screening, there is no way of knowing who is or isn't a refugee. Western countries spend a lot of money supporting the UN to do this job.

Last year and in the first half of this year the German government announced at least 40% of those claiming asylum were economic refugees from Balkan countries whose applications were or will be refused upon completion of assessment processes. It is estimated overall roughly 40% applying for asylum will be assessed as genuine refugees, still an enormous number.

If memory serves me correctly last year only 15% of refused applicants returned to their country of origin. I assume refused applicants still within Germany are provided welfare as they would not be permitted to legally work. There has been reports that German legislation will be hardened to permit more forceful police action for detention and deportation. How legislation can be enforced without co-operation from the country of origin must be a major question mark.

[Steely Dan]

Here is a spokesman for the German police federation actually telling the truth. It will be a miracle if he keeps his job as a result.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/10/they-instinctively-know-that-our-laws-are-weak/

In our asylum camps all hell broke loose; at the border in southern Germany, and in Bavaria especially,

it’s hell. Our colleagues down there can’t ever take their boots off anymore But that’s not just since last week or since last month, but all year. Our federal police and the Bavarian county police especially, and also from other countries, have for months now been heavily overwhelmed, and now politicians are acting like they’re totally surprised, but that can’t be; nobody is surprised, and they should’ve reacted a lot sooner. We hear of mass brawls in asylum camps, we hear of robberies in grocery stores, which is another strain on the police.?

I guess Nobel peace prizes must be awarded in anticipation of a leader doing great harm to their own Country. Edited October 11, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Usernames]

^^^ They are called economic migrants because they are migrating for economic benefit - reaching wealthier countries. This is opposed to refugees who need asylum from danger. Refugees are supposed to stop at the first safe country they enter.

Most of these people aren't refugees.

Cheers.

For many of them, the first country which is a full signatory to the UN conventions on Refugees is a European country. Turkey is not a signatory to the conventions, and abides by only a select few. They apply geographic limitations on the UN Conventions. Only people from Europe, fleeing to Turkey, can be given refugee status. This was, in part, to provide protection to those fleeing the Balkan war.

If you are coming from Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, you may have few options for safety but to head to somewhere such as Europe. There aren't a lot of countries in the vicinity that are signatories to the UN Conventions.

Neighboring countries are providing a safe-haven for hundreds of thousands of people, but they are not necessarily afforded the ability of being screened for refugee status and they are not guaranteed safety. The situation is not unlike the one in Thailand where they may let them stay or they may not.

There is no doubt that those arriving in Europe are a mix, but unless/until they are screened, it cannot be definitively said that they are not refugees.

I doubt anyone knows what percentage of them are Syrians. Many left their home countries as economic opportunists and were never refugees or Syrians.

Once a true refugee reaches safety he's supposed to stop. Paying big money to move far North for perceived economic benefit isn't about refugees.

Have you noticed from myriad and random pictures on the news how many of these people are young and healthy looking men? From what I can see, I see a majority of them.

To say this won't end well for Europe is a classic understatement.

The discussion of refugee vs. economic migrant is not an either or situation. They may be both. Whether they are Syrian, Iraqi or Afghani, they may still be refugees. My point is simply that these people must be screened to determine who is eligible for resettlement and who can and should be returned.

Historically, the mass migration of people, for whatever reason is led by men first and women follow later. As a very, very general rule, women are less likely to face direct persecution than male members of a family. Once the male member arrives somewhere safe, it is likely that the female members will follow. When you see larger numbers of women coming, then you can be assured the routes have been secured and there is a process in place to facilitate larger scale transport of people. In most cases this is facilitated by human traffickers.

The large numbers of people exiting these countries puts huge pressure on neighboring countries which may be willing to house them, however, they do not agree to provide them screening and they do not adhere to the UN protocols on Refugees and with it the safeguards that need to be in place. Recent examples can be seen in Thailand where a few years ago, the Hmong were returned to Laos and several months ago, the Uighur were returned to China, with a few being allowed to move to Turkey. Refugees in the ME remain at the political whim of the local country.

I have worked with various groups of people and have seen situations where 90+% of those fleeing were genuine refugees and other places where 90+% were not genuine refugees.

No doubt many of the people fleeing these areas are facing danger, but danger is not persecution. Persecution is when the existing gov't refuses to provide protection for its citizens. Many of these people are externally displaced people and once the situation is stabilized, they should be able to return, depending on the outcome. If they are supporters of the Assad gov't and he remains in power, they may not be able to return. Conversely, if an opposition party takes control, members of the Assad regime may end up being the real refugees, although it is usually easier to work with a new gov't, which is keen to solidify power and willing to accept international aide under the condition that they treat all citizens well.

Europe is going to learn a valuable lesson about keeping their mouths shut and their borders secure. Screening is best conducted by the UN outside of the resettlement countries. Once they set foot in a resettlement country, repatriation is difficult and a long, legal process.

Until there is active and objective screening, there is no way of knowing who is or isn't a refugee. Western countries spend a lot of money supporting the UN to do this job.

I appreciate Scott's informed opinion on these matters, both from the legal perspective and from what is obviously personal experience. But this one quote of his did get my attention and engendered my own thoughts:

"Historically, the mass migration of people, for whatever reason is led by men first and women follow later. As a very, very general rule, women are less likely to face direct persecution than male members of a family. Once the male member arrives somewhere safe, it is likely that the female members will follow. When you see larger numbers of women coming, then you can be assured the routes have been secured and there is a process in place to facilitate larger scale transport of people."

Historically, of course, we could apply this to the development of say, England. The Britons were "displaced" by the Romans. The Anglo-Saxons "migrated" into England proper. The Vikings sought "refuge" in the north and east of England. And of course the Normans brought "diversity" to all of Britain. But in less touchy-feely times, we usually denoted these events as the Roman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxon Conquest. The Viking Conquest. And the Norman Conquest. In each case, young men came first, followed by their women. And each group put in place its own law, its own rules, its own religion, even its own language--making laws against Anglo-Saxon specifically. At least in those days, an invasion was called an invasion, and the people being invaded had the right to resist. Today their own rulers put them in jail if they mutter even mild dissent. But all in all, better to live under Danelaw than Sharia.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Usernames

[Scott]

Putting semantics aside, this is a little difference between an invasion and a conquest. I have also tried to stress that in the area of refugees, it is important that they be resettled in an orderly process. Resettlement should emphasize integration.

Because of the influx of people, integration could be a very real concern.

What is happening in Europe is definitely an emergency situation. I hope they can deal with it effectively.