Dozens of migrants run across border in Spanish enclave

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, baansgr said:

I suppose its which media one reads and believes.

 

http://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiN9_qZpMfVAhWMsI8KHf5uDDYQFggqMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socialwatch.eu%2F2009%2Fdocuments%2FMalta.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFdgj2Mw0bFFqiCh6xENZxILyMNuQ

Though interesting, little relevance to the topic and overall people movement from North Africa into the EU, as only talks to people reaching Malta

[i claudius]

Yes, and it will get worse and there is no stopping it with The Donald's wall, wealthy Americans buying guns, voting for Brexit  or otherwise. Now, do we wring our hands or look for what is causing the mass migration? Wars ... gee, what a surprise people flee to safety. Economic income wealth gap ... gee people flee to where they believe there is better economic times. The income/wealth gap has grown too wide. It is not sustainable at this level. You do not want Middle Eastern migration? Stop bombing the people. Not rocket science ... read some history....

Perhaps if they got off their buts and worked to make their countrys better like our working folk in years gone by it might help

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Though interesting, little relevance to the topic and overall people movement from North Africa into the EU, as only talks to people reaching Malta

Yes indeed.  Malta is a tiny country in the middle of the Med, with almost no capabilities to handle mass immigration. Their default response used to be deny asylum and send them back.

 

I lived there before they joined the EU, and we used to get boats of immigrants coming within shouting distance of the beaches and asking if this was Sicily. When told no, Sicily was 100 kilometers to the north, they would say thank you and head due north.

 

Bottom line, thousands upon thousands of desperate folks from the Middle East and Africa are going to Europe each year, and all the fences, walls, navy ships, and other tactics will not stop them.  I don't have all the answers, but what is going on now is simply not working.

 

 

[Stargeezr]

The problem lies in the way the countries are being ran by their government.  If most African countries had governments that treated the populations properly, and not let the tribal gangs flourish they would be much better countries. The comment, Stop bombing the countries. Well in Syrias case Syria was barrel bombings its own people. In Libya, one its one time leader was killed off, the tribal nature of the country took over and it is still in total turmoil. In Africa, if it is not rebel gangs operating, it is some terrorist gang that is trying to establish itself to run one of these countries.  Seeing these economic migrants trying to get to Europe for a better life is not what Europe needs for new migrants right now, and everyone knows it. In Yemen,  well I really do not know what the outcome will be, that one looks like a country that will be at war for a long time yet,

Geezer

[halloween]

On 8/8/2017 at 2:14 AM, Scott said:

I certainly don't know any of the liberals, with the exception of some of the extreme folks who don't believe there should be any borders, who think that people should have the right to live wherever they want.  

 

Most 'liberals' believe that people have the right to claim asylum.   If it is denied, then they should be deported.   Most people can't look at a picture and instantly figure out that they are ALL economic migrants, with the exception of some of the more astute members of Thaivisa.  

 

Every country needs to have the right to limit the number and types of people who are allowed to immigrate.   Most countries has quotas on how many refugees they will accept.

 

I don't doubt that many of these people are economic migrants and it appears that the Spanish gov't has a system in place for those to be removed by the Moroccan authorities. 

You are right, you can't tell economic migrants from refugees, and this is the weakness of the system economic migrants are utilising. At the moment immigrants go through a lengthy checking process made harder by destroyed documents. The obvious solution is to let NOBODY in until they are cleared and certified as refugees, and then genuine refugees will do their absolute best to produce required documentation, and those without will face the same lengthy wait.

There is no reason why the citizens of target countries should have to support illegal immigrants for lengthy periods and then face the problems of deporting those denied residence.

The only way to stop the flood is to take a hard line, with force used to protect the borders and illegal immigrants forcefully deported.

[joeyg]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:10 PM, peterb17 said:

I presume you are American, therefore you can look at what is going on in Europe from afar. Countries such as Italy and Greece are becoming overwhelmed. 

 

I would agree with you - the mess in the Middle East was precipitated by Blair & Bush. The people fleeing Syria etc are genuine refugees.

 

The young men pictured are not refugees- they are economic migrants- do you think it acceptable that  taxpayers should pay for them- I sadly doubt they have much education.

 

The main problem is over population, then add corrupt governments ( money siphoned off shore runs into billions) who seem incapable of looking after their own people. 

 

Its  a mess, borders and fences are already rising in Europe- there are millions and millions trying to get into Europe- the land of milk and honey- sadly it's not- creaking under vast debt to provide social welfare for its own citizens. 

 

 

 

 

 

Greece is banning Brits though. Greek island bans 10,000 boozy Brits for destroying its reputation

 

[bert bloggs]

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

Greece is banning Brits though. Greek island bans 10,000 boozy Brits for destroying its reputation

 

No problem ,we can take our money and spend it elswhere for out two weeks holiday ,at least we spend our cash then go home 

[joeyg]

Just now, bert bloggs said:

No problem ,we can take our money and spend it elswhere for out two weeks holiday ,at least we spend our cash then go home 

Brilliant!!!  Please budget some for dental care.

[bert bloggs]

29 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Brilliant!!!  Please budget some for dental care.

????????????

[Ace of Pop]

Its funny how some posters rush to blame Bush Blair or any Westerner with more than 100[emoji383]to his name.!.Those folks who ran did so because rumour has it theres handouts n Medicare etc..They dont in the majority of cases know whats going on in their own Country, let alone anywhere else.!.?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Ace of Pop]

Obama and Blair are to blame, very little of this happened befor Gadaffi was overthrown and killed. Those two murderers have a lot to answer for in the illegal wars they started and the mess left behind and should hold their heads in shame

Gadaffi The nice Gentleman who assisted in blowing up a Pan AM Jet over Scotland with one or 2 innocent on board.Yes its all our fault. [emoji562]


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Ace of Pop said:

Gadaffi The nice Gentleman who assisted in blowing up a Pan AM Jet over Scotland with one or 2 innocent on board.Yes its all our fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Gadaffi also sent arms shipments to the IRA. He was a nut case dictator who robbed his country and placed his family and friends in high positions as is common for totalitarian despots.

 

Wonder how some posters would like his type of law and order, democracy and freedoms in their home countries? Should think of that before blaming others.

[dick dasterdly]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:04 AM, wwest5829 said:

Guilty as charged, an American. Redeeming social value, in that, I have friends posting to my FB page from 5 continents including one FB friend in Italy who lets me know, in no uncertain terms the problems Italy is facing. I do not view the economic migration as much a problem of overpopulation as much as the economic issues you also have pointed out. It is not only corrupt officials in those countries ripping off the people and country resources. There is a long history of western economic interests ripping off the peoples of those lands. My point is that, in order to address the force behind the migration, an economic balancing must come about or the flow to regions rumored to have better economic potential. I do not know gov't policy in the EU as to support for illegal immigrants, in the US (never mind the right wing reports), the law does not allow public money support.

"I do not view the economic migration as much a problem of overpopulation as much as the economic issues you also have pointed out. It is not only corrupt officials in those countries ripping off the people and country resources. There is a long history of western economic interests ripping off the peoples of those lands. My point is that, in order to address the force behind the migration, an economic balancing must come about or the flow to regions rumored to have better economic potential."

 

The problem is that "an economic balancing" is a pipe dream - there are WAY too many people who only care about increasing their own wealth.

 

Which is why they outsource/argue strongly as to how all immigrants are a benefit to society etc. etc.

 

As long as there are poor people in wealthy countries - "an economic balancing" can't even begin to start......

[swanny321]

On 8/7/2017 at 3:38 PM, car720 said:

Which beggars the question..................If Ai is set to alter the future of mankind in the near future then what is it going to do with these poor buggers?

 

  A spot of research and I discovered the reason governments are allowing this to happen is to ensure a cheap

labour force going forwards...seems the largest demand for such is the agriculture industry ie field work on

fruits and veg, processing, packaging via conveyor belt factories etc etc...I doubt AI is going to replace manual

dexterity any time soon.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, swanny321 said:

 

  A spot of research and I discovered the reason governments are allowing this to happen is to ensure a cheap

labour force going forwards...seems the largest demand for such is the agriculture industry ie field work on

fruits and veg, processing, packaging via conveyor belt factories etc etc...I doubt AI is going to replace manual

dexterity any time soon.

We've been reading about robots/computers taking over most jobs for decades - and how will society cope with far shorter working hours/reduced pay etc. etc.

 

As it turns out the 'reduced pay' was correct whilst the 'shorter working hours' was the opposite - as many work longer and longer hours in a desperate attempt to save their job/prove their worth and commitment to the company....

 

Back on topic - its v obvious that (like so many others....) these migrants weren't refugees - they were economic migrants prepared to use any force 'necessary' to achieve their goals.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

????????????

Injuries from assaults

[MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT]

 

[Morch]

On 8/7/2017 at 11:14 PM, Scott said:

I certainly don't know any of the liberals, with the exception of some of the extreme folks who don't believe there should be any borders, who think that people should have the right to live wherever they want.  

 

Most 'liberals' believe that people have the right to claim asylum.   If it is denied, then they should be deported.   Most people can't look at a picture and instantly figure out that they are ALL economic migrants, with the exception of some of the more astute members of Thaivisa.  

 

Every country needs to have the right to limit the number and types of people who are allowed to immigrate.   Most countries has quotas on how many refugees they will accept.

 

I don't doubt that many of these people are economic migrants and it appears that the Spanish gov't has a system in place for those to be removed by the Moroccan authorities. 

 

I think that when it comes to actual deportation, rather than the theoretical concept, liberals (perhaps other liberals) do tend to raise hurdles. It is a standing observation on these topics that deportation procedures relating to the EU are complicated, time consuming, conditional on a host of related legalities, or are not uniformly enforced. In fact, I think that's one of the main issue irking some - letting people in conditionally is one thing, applying conditions being unrealistic or simply not enforced is another. 

[simple1]

URL below provides some insight on how Spanish authorities process asylum seekers and those declined refugee status.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/spain-migrants-held-poor-conditions

 

As has been informed in a number of topics, EU governments must negotiate government to government agreements to facilitate forced deportations, some agreements are now in-place with an ongoing process for each jurisdiction. Another issue is under funding and lack of resource allocation for initial asylum seeker processing across the EU and then dealing with the estimated 60% of asylum seekers now being identified as economic refugees and subject to removal.

 

As a side comment a right wing politician gaining a bit of traction in Australia is promoting Australia withdraws from the UN Convention for Refugees, wouldn't be surprised if other signatories go down that path, thereby exacerbating the challenges for orderly handling of asylum seekers with resultant increased misery and conflict.

[halloween]

54 minutes ago, simple1 said:

URL below provides some insight on how Spanish authorities process asylum seekers and those declined refugee status.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/spain-migrants-held-poor-conditions

 

As has been informed in a number of topics, EU governments must negotiate government to government agreements to facilitate forced deportations, some agreements are now in-place with an ongoing process for each jurisdiction. Another issue is under funding and lack of resource allocation for initial asylum seeker processing across the EU and then dealing with the estimated 60% of asylum seekers now being identified as economic refugees and subject to removal.

 

As a side comment a right wing politician gaining a bit of traction in Australia is promoting Australia withdraws from the UN Convention for Refugees, wouldn't be surprised if other signatories go down that path, thereby exacerbating the challenges for orderly handling of asylum seekers with resultant increased misery and conflict.

As the UN Convention fro Refugees is the source of considerable misery and conflict within those countries being swamped by those purporting to be refugees, not withdrawing from it would seem to be a conflict with their politicians' primary responsibilities - to the people who elected them and they supposedly represent.

 

Face it, while a nice lefty idea, it has been a disaster for the developed countries who signed up to it.

[wwest5829]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"I do not view the economic migration as much a problem of overpopulation as much as the economic issues you also have pointed out. It is not only corrupt officials in those countries ripping off the people and country resources. There is a long history of western economic interests ripping off the peoples of those lands. My point is that, in order to address the force behind the migration, an economic balancing must come about or the flow to regions rumored to have better economic potential."

 

The problem is that "an economic balancing" is a pipe dream - there are WAY too many people who only care about increasing their own wealth.

 

Which is why they outsource/argue strongly as to how all immigrants are a benefit to society etc. etc.

 

As long as there are poor people in wealthy countries - "an economic balancing" can't even begin to start......

Not a pipe dream, although it comes about from the wealth holders recognizing it is in their own best interest to lesson the wealth/control gap ( faced with this dilemma, the Roman patricians were known to acquiesce to a point). The steadfast defense of the status quo? No stopping the migration seeking believed better oppertunities elsewhere. Bottle them up? 1.) can't 2). the resulting strife, wars that we see and have seen in history... IMHO. The "balancing" I speak of is a return to historical norms, by the way, not an absolute individual economic equality...

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by wwest5829

[simple1]

7 hours ago, halloween said:

As the UN Convention fro Refugees is the source of considerable misery and conflict within those countries being swamped by those purporting to be refugees, not withdrawing from it would seem to be a conflict with their politicians' primary responsibilities - to the people who elected them and they supposedly represent.

 

Face it, while a nice lefty idea, it has been a disaster for the developed countries who signed up to it.

Face it, you obviously don't know why the Convention came into being and the benefits of orderly and agreed processes for managing asylum seekers, nothing to do with being 'lefty'. Only 30 countries worldwide accept positively vetted asylum seekers, reducing intake will intensify the refugee problems for host countries, the large majority being outside of the Western sphere. thereby the potential for increased conflict.

[Saradoc1972]

37 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Face it, you obviously don't know why the Convention came into being and the benefits of orderly and agreed processes for managing asylum seekers, nothing to do with being 'lefty'. Only 30 countries worldwide accept positively vetted asylum seekers, reducing intake will intensify the refugee problems for host countries, the large majority being outside of the Western sphere. thereby the potential for increased conflict.

Convention was agreed on in 1951, it obviously was signed under the impression of WW2 and, for example, Jewish refugees being turned back to their certain doom. As is evident from the 1967 amendment (which e.g. the US did not sign), where the idea of accepting refugees was expanded beyond what the original convention referred to, don't make me look it up, as "recent events", as seen from 1951. And nothing much else.

And it does allow refugees of war to cross into the next adjacent country with immunity from legal sanctions for crossing that border without permit (Turkey does not seem to oblige here with its border fortifications; might again have to do with the present bout of terrorism and suicide bombers), but not do an extended tour of the world. Like from Central America through the US to Canada, or through half a dozen countries to Germany or Britain. And there very definitely is nothing in there about camping in Morocco to skirmish with Moroccan or Spanish police, or throwing stuff on French motorways to make lorries slow and crawl aboard them. And bashing drivers' heads in.

 

And I maintain nobody back then thought of anyone, masses indeed, abusing naval law to get rescued from inflatable plastic toy-boats in the Meds, when that would normally be just obvious suicide. And there definitely is nothing in there about being immune to deportation, factually, for lacking papers and having home countries glad to be rid of them and them sending remissions home. Does not sound like a 1951 or 1967 thing.

And I sadly have stopped caring about who is a genuine refugee or an economic refugee when effective and truthful clearing and screening can no longer be done for the sheer masses forcing their way over borders in total disregard of existing legal venues (you can actually approach the border checkpoints of Ceuta and Melilla to apply for asylum, just Moroccan police will limit the number of people going there per day, so the Spanish can actually cope) and people losing eyes and limbs when attacked. And there is the old Muslim problem, sorry to bring it up again, it's only you don't get just the sweet ones.

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Saradoc1972 said:

Convention was agreed on in 1951, it obviously was signed under the impression of WW2 and, for example, Jewish refugees being turned back to their certain doom. As is evident from the 1967 amendment (which e.g. the US did not sign), where the idea of accepting refugees was expanded beyond what the original convention referred to, don't make me look it up, as "recent events", as seen from 1951. And nothing much else.

And it does allow refugees of war to cross into the next adjacent country with immunity from legal sanctions for crossing that border without permit (Turkey does not seem to oblige here with its border fortifications; might again have to do with the present bout of terrorism and suicide bombers), but not do an extended tour of the world. Like from Central America through the US to Canada, or through half a dozen countries to Germany or Britain. And there very definitely is nothing in there about camping in Morocco to skirmish with Moroccan or Spanish police, or throwing stuff on French motorways to make lorries slow and crawl aboard them. And bashing drivers' heads in.

 

And I maintain nobody back then thought of anyone, masses indeed, abusing naval law to get rescued from inflatable plastic toy-boats in the Meds, when that would normally be just obvious suicide. And there definitely is nothing in there about being immune to deportation, factually, for lacking papers and having home countries glad to be rid of them and them sending remissions home. Does not sound like a 1951 or 1967 thing.

And I sadly have stopped caring about who is a genuine refugee or an economic refugee when effective and truthful clearing and screening can no longer be done for the sheer masses forcing their way over borders in total disregard of existing legal venues (you can actually approach the border checkpoints of Ceuta and Melilla to apply for asylum, just Moroccan police will limit the number of people going there per day, so the Spanish can actually cope) and people losing eyes and limbs when attacked. And there is the old Muslim problem, sorry to bring it up again, it's only you don't get just the sweet ones.

 

 

USA did not ratify / sign the 1951 UN Convention for Refugees, but did ratify & sign the 1967 Protocol. Note, the USA has not ratified a number of UN Conventions.

 

Whilst you are not interested, some members may like to review the URL below, it's an example of the argument for reforming the 1951 UN Convention for Refugees.

 

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/australia-and-1951-refugee-convention

 

Info on the 1967 Protocol is also provided, though a number of countries lodged ammendments for their jurisdiction.

 

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3ae4.html

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by simple1

[The Old Bull]

On 8/8/2017 at 10:40 AM, cream said:

Classic case of Problem,

                            Reaction,

                            Solution.

 

It's all part of the plan to dilute customs, cultures and certain religions all around the world starting with Europe.

 

Back track to Sept 11 1991 some might recall George Bush Seniors speech of a New World Order. 

It's been happening ever since before our eyes and this is a perfect example.

Their agenda is Globalisation, one world government, one world currency = control over every single person.

 

Who's responsible for this ? it's the 1% of the worlds extremely wealthy people and families most have never heard of                                                                                  as any photographs or information has been suppressed.

They own and control the Banks, Oil, Gold, Drugs, Stock Markets, News and Media, Governments etc 

 

How they are able to do this ?  Same way that it is done here in Thailand - Corruption, Blackmail and Bribery.

 

 

In Canada you are not allowed to mention the Rothchilds. If their names are mentioned on any radio talk show the caller is quickly cut off. I think radio stations must have a list of banned topics that are not public knowledge, just like they have a list of songs that are prohibited when the country is at war. The Band played Waltzing Matilda, Imagine, Where have all the Flowers gone etc.

[halloween]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Face it, you obviously don't know why the Convention came into being and the benefits of orderly and agreed processes for managing asylum seekers, nothing to do with being 'lefty'. Only 30 countries worldwide accept positively vetted asylum seekers, reducing intake will intensify the refugee problems for host countries, the large majority being outside of the Western sphere. thereby the potential for increased conflict.

You're right, and I don't care. We have a serious problem NOW and the root cause of it is an agreement that enables anyone to roll up and claim refugee status which grants them admission, and proving their illegality is time-consuming, expensive and may not result in their removal for many years, if ever.

And while that situation exists, multiple millions more see that it WORKED, and will follow.

[Ace of Pop]

In Portugal near Portimao there is an Enclave of Angolans ,they have built on the shore, fish n grow stuff ,come into Town to sell , cause no probs, you can go there, sit at Mon n Pops, enjoy beer with them ,if only.... add your own thoughts ..?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[metisdead]

Troll posts have been removed.