Mediterranean migrant deaths and CMD.

[Hastings gull]

Not sure of the figures of asylum seekers to the UK but i know that around 95% of people who come to Australia on boats are genuine refugees. The reason for this is that only the rich people from those countries can afford to travel on these rickety leaky boats. The prices charged by people smugglers is incredibly high, most people cannot afford them and end fleeing on foot to neighbouring countries. Many refugees I have spoken to have spent all the money they have on boat fares for one person in the hope that once they get refugee status they will find their families and be able to bring them over on family visas. So actually the further away from the problem you are the more likely you are to get wealthy and well to do refugees.

I agree that it is a difficult situation and one i sadly don't know the answer to. There are many people in Australia who will offer refugees a room to stay in their houses. If i had the room I would certainly do this. Currently i am trying to find the time to offer my services to teach them English to assist them with assimilation. One thing I am certain of (and i am going to get a bit preachy here so i apologise and this is not directed at you) is that we need to start seeing them as people rather than the invading hoards of terrorists or economic migrants that they are often made out to be. The best way to do this I have found is to get involved in helping them and listening to their stories and the problems they are facing. Once people have heard their stories it would take a heart of stone to advocate 'sending them back' as some on this thread have suggested.

Once again i apologise for the preaching and I am not for one moment putting myself forward as some kind of saint on this subject as I could and should do a lot more, but as you say it is a very difficult situation

Thanks for this and I am not in the slightest bit taking it personally. I don't doubt that 95% are genuine refugees, almost by definition, if they have left their own country. But the fact that they are genuine refugees who have afterall left of their own accord (yes. I know -war etc etc) does not necessarily mean that the UK has a duty to take them in, particularly given the stat that we have 300,000 a year already. I see your point about being relatively wealthy to afford the trip to smugglers, but are they all paying these dreadful people? Also, would the journey to OZ be much longer than to the nearest italian island, which may account for the higher fees charged? And also I suspect that the numbers we are talking about are rather different.
The numbers -this to me is the crux of the matter. If it were just a trickle, I imagine that this would elicit far more sympathy and praise for their ingenuity, rather like East German escapees! I am sure that some folk here too would offer assistance, in the way that you do. When you are faced with thousands, however, which I suspect you in Geelong are not, then it is harder to listen to their stories, which I am sure would be quite heart-breaking. And also it is an understandable fear for the future and the risks of civil strife, the danger of which grows as immigrant numbers grow and the areas they "take over" become ever larger. Of course, we should all live together and follow your noble example, I fully appreciate, but sadly life tends not to be like this. It is not all one-way either -my friend's daughter left further education in Leicester due to perpetual and quite threatening insults of "white slut" etc from muslims.

 

[simmo]

No! No! Those people don't have any agency. They cannot do -- they only be done to.

Anything that happens over there has to be the result of outside forces, like the US, CIA, NATO, the EU, the ECB, Israel, big oil...
The shadowier the better.

I mean we were shocking in the Ashes and the World Cup was just a joke and the less said about the Pietersen affair the better. But to blame them for the current situation in the Middle East is pushing it a little too far.

 

[Hastings gull]

You accusing me of lying?

Blimey, and I thought that you were one of the more reasoned argumentative people, perhaps I was wrong.

Anyway, it's all about opinions.

NO I was not, as I explicitly said. What more do you want? Take the personal side out of it, for a moment. Perhaps I could have made my point rather better and in fact did change it several times to aid clarity, probably unsuccessfully! I was trying to say that because of anonymity, one would always respond as you do, knowing that others have no way of disproving it. Who would afterall voluntarily admit hypocrisy? So, despite a truthful response, you still wonder . . For the record, I am saying that you are NOT lying!
I still want you to regard me a reasoned person!

 

[BadFish]

Thanks for this and I am not in the slightest bit taking it personally. I don't doubt that 95% are genuine refugees, almost by definition, if they have left their own country. But the fact that they are genuine refugees who have afterall left of their own accord (yes. I know -war etc etc) does not necessarily mean that the UK has a duty to take them in, particularly given the stat that we have 300,000 a year already.

I think you need to make sure that your figures are correct. The table I posted earlier showed that their were 150,000 asylum application in the UK during a 4 year period between 2008 and 2012. I don't know where you get the figure of 300,000 from. I must say that i would suggest that you should speak to some of these people and then revisit your rather flippant comment about "yes. I know war etc etc". What i suspect you would find is that in fact they have left of their own accord but fear to return to their own countries for fear of death. Not much of a choice really.

I see your point about being relatively wealthy to afford the trip to smugglers, but are they all paying these dreadful people? Also, would the journey to OZ be much longer than to the nearest italian island, which may account for the higher fees charged? And also I suspect that the numbers we are talking about are rather different.

I am not sure of the fees charged to get to Italy but i would suggest that it is out of the reach of most of the population.

The numbers -this to me is the crux of the matter. If it were just a trickle, I imagine that this would elicit far more sympathy and praise for their ingenuity, rather like East German escapees! I am sure that some folk here too would offer assistance, in the way that you do. When you are faced with thousands, however, which I suspect you in Geelong are not, then it is harder to listen to their stories, which I am sure would be quite heart-breaking.

It is true that it is harder to listen to their stories if there are more of them, this however doesn't make their stories any different. The fact that their are millions of people in need should mean that we should be more willing to help more of them rather than less willing to help. This is my opinion and sadly not shared by my government who are ensuring that their are less arrivals by boat by treating them in the most hideous way possible. This is shameful and one day an Australian Prim Minister will stand up and apologise for these governments actions.

And also it is an understandable fear for the future and the risks of civil strife, the danger of which grows as immigrant numbers grow and the areas they "take over" become ever larger. Of course, we should all live together and follow your noble example, I fully appreciate, but sadly life tends not to be like this. It is not all one-way either -my friend's daughter left further education in Leicester due to perpetual and quite threatening insults of "white slut" etc from muslims.

I think you are now confusing the asylum seeker issue with the wider immigration issue. Perhaps this is where you got the figure of 300,000 in a year from? I seem to remember reading that most UK asylum seekers are non Muslim (although I am unable to find the article at present).

 

[Hastings gull]

Maybe people actually don't mind having refugees living near them. This may be because refugees are just people like the rest of us. The only difference is that they have been through hell to get where they are.

I don't doubt that this may be true. This all depends on what the situation on the ground is, however. If the refugees are lovely folk who only want to do their bit, then of course it should not be a problem. Others living near Roma families in Sheffield, for example, would tell a different story. But the fact that immigrant communities tend to live in their own areas, suggests the opposite to what you are claiming, namely that indigenous folk move away -and also that refugees (understandably) tend to favour their own.

 

[BadFish]

I don't doubt that this may be true. This all depends on what the situation on the ground is, however. If the refugees are lovely folk who only want to do their bit, then of course it should not be a problem. Others living near Roma families in Sheffield, for example, would tell a different story. But the fact that immigrant communities tend to live in their own areas, suggests the opposite to what you are claiming, namely that indigenous folk move away -and also that refugees (understandably) tend to favour their own.

Again you are moving from discussing refugees and then using Roma families and large immigrant communities as examples to suggest than one would not like to live near refugees. Are the Roma families refugees?

Of course their are examples of people who are undesirable to live near but to suggest that this is because they are refugees is illogical and disingenuous.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Link

British Red Cross.
http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/What-we-do/Refugee-support/Refugee-facts-and-figures

Here are some sound facts regarding refugees and asylum seekers.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

British Red Cross.
http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/What-we-do/Refugee-support/Refugee-facts-and-figures

Here are some sound facts regarding refugees and asylum seekers.

Thanks

 

[Hastings gull]

I think you need to make sure that your figures are correct. The table I posted earlier showed that their were 150,000 asylum application in the UK during a 4 year period between 2008 and 2012. I don't know where you get the figure of 300,000 from. I must say that i would suggest that you should speak to some of these people and then revisit your rather flippant comment about "yes. I know war etc etc". What i suspect you would find is that in fact they have left of their own accord but fear to return to their own countries for fear of death. Not much of a choice really.



I am not sure of the fees charged to get to Italy but i would suggest that it is out of the reach of most of the population.



It is true that it is harder to listen to their stories if there are more of them, this however doesn't make their stories any different. The fact that their are millions of people in need should mean that we should be more willing to help more of them rather than less willing to help. This is my opinion and sadly not shared by my government who are ensuring that their are less arrivals by boat by treating them in the most hideous way possible. This is shameful and one day an Australian Prim Minister will stand up and apologise for these governments actions.



I think you are now confusing the asylum seeker issue with the wider immigration issue. Perhaps this is where you got the figure of 300,000 in a year from? I seem to remember reading that most UK asylum seekers are non Muslim (although I am unable to find the article at present).

I did not mean to be flippant, just that I was trying to précis the reasons, rather than drag out my ramblings any further! By the way, my family on the German side were refuges from East Germany after the war, starting with nothing, to escape the Russians, and so I do know something about what these folk go through. I am not confusing the issues regarding numbers as they are clearly linked. The figure of 300,00, which you would probably not have heard of, is the figure used by the government to lump all annual entries into the UK together. It includes people from the EU, usually from more backward parts or rather less developed areas of Europe. When it comes to accessing the NHS and local schools, I don't think folk here start asking themselves whether they are refugees or asylum seekers or whatever. Of course there is an argument to say that the more there are, the greater the efforts should be made to help them, and whilst this is quite laudable, the sheer size of the task does lead to problems, and inevitable accusations od bias/unfairness/discrimination which I don't think you face to the same extent.

 

[Hastings gull]

Again you are moving from discussing refugees and then using Roma families and large immigrant communities as examples to suggest than one would not like to live near refugees. Are the Roma families refugees?

Of course their are examples of people who are undesirable to live near but to suggest that this is because they are refugees is illogical and disingenuous.

OK fair enough, if you want an academic distinction between the two. I don't think the people in Sheffield would be that bothered about such niceties. If a Roma family are immigrants due to wanting to leave Romania due to poverty, I don't think most would see too much difference, other than in name, between them and the Ethiopian family leaving Ethiopia due to poverty. Of course, there are many refugees leaving war-torn areas, I fully accept.

 

[BadFish]

OK fair enough, if you want an academic distinction between the two. I don't think the people in Sheffield would be that bothered about such niceties. If a Roma family are immigrants due to wanting to leave Romania due to poverty, I don't think most would see too much difference, other than in name, between them and the Ethiopian family leaving Ethiopia due to poverty. Of course, there are many refugees leaving war-torn areas, I fully accept.

Check out the link a few posts up for the definitions but refugees are only refugees when they are in danger if they return to their home countries. Both your examples are economic migrants and would not be granted refugee status.

 

[BadFish]

I did not mean to be flippant, just that I was trying to précis the reasons, rather than drag out my ramblings any further! By the way, my family on the German side were refuges from East Germany after the war, starting with nothing, to escape the Russians, and so I do know something about what these folk go through. I am not confusing the issues regarding numbers as they are clearly linked. The figure of 300,00, which you would probably not have heard of, is the figure used by the government to lump all annual entries into the UK together. It includes people from the EU, usually from more backward parts or rather less developed areas of Europe. When it comes to accessing the NHS and local schools, I don't think folk here start asking themselves whether they are refugees or asylum seekers or whatever. Of course there is an argument to say that the more there are, the greater the efforts should be made to help them, and whilst this is quite laudable, the sheer size of the task does lead to problems, and inevitable accusations od bias/unfairness/discrimination which I don't think you face to the same extent.

If we are using the 300,000 figure then we are moving on to discussing immigration as a whole rather than the issue we started on. To me this is an important distinction as they are desperate people who need our help and their are millions more out there in desperate situations.

 

[Hastings gull]

Check out the link a few posts up for the definitions but refugees are only refugees when they are in danger if they return to their home countries. Both your examples are economic migrants and would not be granted refugee status.

OK -see what you are saying. The problem is that they all tend to say that they are in danger, even if they are not. Of course opponents of a regime might be fearful, but that is not always the case.

 

[Hastings gull]

If we are using the 300,000 figure then we are moving on to discussing immigration as a whole rather than the issue we started on. To me this is an important distinction as they are desperate people who need our help and their are millions more out there in desperate situations.

But economic immigrants would surely say the same thing, notably that they need our help. They come from presumably a situation of extreme poverty. I don't doubt the legal definition, but I think you would find that for most folk it is rather academic.

 

[BadFish]

OK -see what you are saying. The problem is that they all tend to say that they are in danger, even if they are not. Of course opponents of a regime might be fearful, but that is not always the case.

They meaning??

 

[Publius Ovidius]

NO I was not, as I explicitly said. What more do you want? Take the personal side out of it, for a moment. Perhaps I could have made my point rather better and in fact did change it several times to aid clarity, probably unsuccessfully! I was trying to say that because of anonymity, one would always respond as you do, knowing that others have no way of disproving it. Who would afterall voluntarily admit hypocrisy? So, despite a truthful response, you still wonder . . For the record, I am saying that you are NOT lying!
I still want you to regard me a reasoned person!

I think that boat has sailed

 

[Hastings gull]

I think that boat has sailed

What does this mean? Is it something to do with refugees at Calais?

 

[BadFish]

But economic immigrants would surely say the same thing, notably that they need our help. They come from presumably a situation of extreme poverty. I don't doubt the legal definition, but I think you would find that for most folk it is rather academic.

I would assume you are right and that they would say the same thing, given that in the info a few post back it says

just 37% of people applying for an initial decision were granted asylum.
There were 8,512 asylum appeals from main applications - and 25% were allowed.

Presumably the people who do not get accepted as refugees are not allowed to stay in the country, they are certainly not allowed to claim benefits like refugees and must make arrangements to leave the country (if they can't then arrangements are made for them (I know there are stories of people disappearing and living illegally in the UK but i don't know how many these represent).

So if they say that their lives are in danger and it is not true then they are not legally allowed to enter the UK this happens to 60% of asylum seekers.

I would agree that for most folk these definitions are academic. This concerns me as it is this kind of misunderstanding that allows misinformation to be circulated and causes the fear of all those evil Asylum seekers in Calais etc.

To me these distinctions are important as if we look at the figure we have around 6,000 failed asylum seekers which is 2% of all immigrants into the UK (Check my maths as it has been a long day). Even if we assumed that a quarter of those who sought asylum and failed to get refugee status absconded and became illegal immigrants hiding in the UK (I think this is way over the top and the % would be much much lower but i can't find that information anywhere) that means we are talking about 1.5% of the years migrant population of the UK that have come over and illegally settled.

 

[JCL666]

When it comes down to it I have to say that if my life was pretty crap, and the outlook for my family was bleak then I would do whatever I could to address that.

Which I guess is why I'm unlikely to ever believe that immigrants, asylum seekers etc should be turned away or demonised.

The answer(s) IMO don't lie in shutting borders. These people are not going to stop coming while there is such vast disparity between life outcomes throughout the world.

One last thing. They are human beings. In the case of those crossing the med, incredibly desperate human beings.

 

[BadFish]

I did not mean to be flippant, just that I was trying to précis the reasons, rather than drag out my ramblings any further! By the way, my family on the German side were refuges from East Germany after the war, starting with nothing, to escape the Russians, and so I do know something about what these folk go through. I am not confusing the issues regarding numbers as they are clearly linked. The figure of 300,00, which you would probably not have heard of, is the figure used by the government to lump all annual entries into the UK together. It includes people from the EU, usually from more backward parts or rather less developed areas of Europe. When it comes to accessing the NHS and local schools, I don't think folk here start asking themselves whether they are refugees or asylum seekers or whatever. Of course there is an argument to say that the more there are, the greater the efforts should be made to help them, and whilst this is quite laudable, the sheer size of the task does lead to problems, and inevitable accusations od bias/unfairness/discrimination which I don't think you face to the same extent.

As a point of fact it is worth noting that if we are talking about migrants on a % of the population basis then Australia has a little more than double that of the UK.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html