Mediterranean migrant deaths and CMD.

[BadFish]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-migration-lets-organise-it?CMP=share_btn_fb

Someone at the UN agrees with me any way

 

[BadFish]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-migration-lets-organise-it?CMP=share_btn_fb

Someone at the UN agrees with me any way

I stand corrected though, there are indeed economic migrants on those boats. How desperate must people be to put themselves at that kind of risk?

 

[Hastings gull]

Okay one more crack at this: then I will concede that my explanations are not up to scratch

The point i am making is that all those people on those boats and at Calais are Asylum Seekers. Those boats are dangerous and expensive which means that other types of migrants would not use this method of entry if another was available. It is also unlikely that the people on the boats are economic migrants attempting to escape extreme poverty because such poverty would mean that they can't afford to get on the boats.

The key point to them being Asylum Seekers is that they claim to be one. You said that they may claim this just to escape poverty, at this stage the validity of their claim is not relevant to their status. Asylum Seekers are such because they are seeking to claim Asylum. This is perfectly legal.

The next stage once they land in the UK is to claim Asylum. Once they do this then their claims are processed. This process is rigorous and only those escaping persecution or death are given Refugee status. the process also allows for an appeal and I believe a new application if they believe they can provide new evidence. Those that are refused refugee status are asked to make arrangements to go back to their home lands. Still at this point no one has broken any laws. The only way that an Asylum Seeker can break the law is if they decide to abscond once their application is finally denied. These people are obviously living and working illegally and cannot gain a NI number or claim benefits. I don't know the figures for how many of these people there are.

So if people are falsely claiming to be refugees then they are still Asylum Seekers but will not be granted refugee status and will not become migrants. In short Refugees are a subgroup of migrants and Asylum Seekers may or may not end up being migrants. The figure for the UK is around 40% being granted refugee status. I have not looked up the statistics for the people coming across the med to Italy.

As I have said the distinction between Asylum Seekers and migrants is not just academic and it is very important, especially in the context of this thread which is about Asylum Seekers.

i am assuming that I am not explaining this stuff very well so here are a few links that may do it better.

https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/asylum

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/glossary

http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/the-asylum-process-made-simple/#What

Please don't spend any more time in explaining, as I do understand the legal niceties. This highlighted para more than anything else demonstrates the problem when talking about something thousands of miles away. I suspect that the system in Oz is precisely as you state, as they are dealing with fewer numbers, and you will have been through some sort of process yourself, presumably. Here, there is much anecdotal evidence that the Border Control Agency cannot cope with so many to process. You would have to be really naive if you thought that that in each case with so many to process it is rigorous, and in any case, how on earth do you prove an immigrant's motives, given that they have every motivation to lie and that checking for evidence in a country, such as Somalia would be most unlikely to bear fruit. As to whether large numbers are in fact deported, strangely, or significantly, depending on your degree of cynicism, there is little news on this. I am certain that I have never seen anything on TV or read anything in the press on this.

 

[Hastings gull]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-migration-lets-organise-it?CMP=share_btn_fb

Someone at the UN agrees with me any way

Is this not typical of a politician living in the clouds. Wonderful sentiments, showing how kind and nice he is, but with little real thought as to the practicalities, and the effect on the areas where they will settle -not that he will be any where near that, of course. Lets take 14,000 Syrians a year, and all the other potential migrants in Calais will say "yes, fair enough and we will go home and let them have priority", as will the EU immigrants, because everyone will be fair and put the Syrians ahead of their own desperation.
The reality next year would be 314,000 new entries into the UK.

 

[BadFish]

Please don't spend any more time in explaining, as I do understand the legal niceties. This highlighted para more than anything else demonstrates the problem when talking about something thousands of miles away. I suspect that the system in Oz is precisely as you state, as they are dealing with fewer numbers, and you will have been through some sort of process yourself, presumably. Here, there is much anecdotal evidence that the Border Control Agency cannot cope with so many to process. You would have to be really naive if you thought that that in each case with so many to process it is rigorous, and in any case, how on earth do you prove an immigrant's motives, given that they have every motivation to lie and that checking for evidence in a country, such as Somalia would be most unlikely to bear fruit. As to whether large numbers are in fact deported, strangely, or significantly, depending on your degree of cynicism, there is little news on this. I am certain that I have never seen anything on TV or read anything in the press on this.

I agree that it is significant that the media do not discuss the number of failed Asylum Seekers that are deported each year. The figure is 50,741 + those that are refused entry and then removed*. Out of interest Why do you think that this number has not been widely published in the media. It is interesting that you highlight something that you think demonstrates the problem of being so far away. Yet all those sentences are are paraphrased and summarised information from the links at the bottom, all English websites written by people working in the field. Add to this the fact that you posted this sentence

As to whether large numbers are in fact deported, strangely, or significantly, depending on your degree of cynicism, there is little news on this. I am certain that I have never seen anything on TV or read anything in the press on this.

and I searched for and found that information quickly and easily demonstrates that in this day and age distance really means very little.

*In 2013, as Figure 1 shows, 50,741 people were removed from the UK or departed voluntarily after the initiation of removal. This is an increase of 14.5% from 2012, and more than double the number from 2004. This figure excludes individuals refused entry at port and subsequently removed, in order to focus more closely on what most people
normally think of as 'deportation'. Figure 2 below provides data on individuals refused entry at port, for the sake of completeness.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-uk

 

[BadFish]

Is this not typical of a politician living in the clouds. Wonderful sentiments, showing how kind and nice he is, but with little real thought as to the practicalities, and the effect on the areas where they will settle -not that he will be any where near that, of course. Lets take 14,000 Syrians a year, and all the other potential migrants in Calais will say "yes, fair enough and we will go home and let them have priority", as will the EU immigrants, because everyone will be fair and put the Syrians ahead of their own desperation.
The reality next year would be 314,000 new entries into the UK.

I think this is someone who is looking at the wider picture and trying to come up with a solution that is tolerable to everyone. If nations don't get together to find a workable solution that spreads the burden evenly across countries able to help then the burden will continue to placed on a small number of countries as it is now. Just because the UK says we can't take any more or Australia say look we've found a great way of keeping them away this doesn't solve the problem it just pushes it onto someone else's doorstep. the world has global organisations that enable countries to get together and discuss solutions to these problems, what this fella seems to be suggesting is that we use them to find a solution to this problem.

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree that it is significant that the media do not discuss the number of failed Asylum Seekers that are deported each year. The figure is 50,741 + those that are refused entry and then removed*. Out of interest Why do you think that this number has not been widely published in the media. It is interesting that you highlight something that you think demonstrates the problem of being so far away. Yet all those sentences are are paraphrased and summarised information from the links at the bottom, all English websites written by people working in the field. Add to this the fact that you posted this sentence



and I searched for and found that information quickly and easily demonstrates that in this day and age distance really means very little.

*In 2013, as Figure 1 shows, 50,741 people were removed from the UK or departed voluntarily after the initiation of removal. This is an increase of 14.5% from 2012, and more than double the number from 2004. This figure excludes individuals refused entry at port and subsequently removed, in order to focus more closely on what most people
normally think of as 'deportation'. Figure 2 below provides data on individuals refused entry at port, for the sake of completeness.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-uk

Ok fair comment. Of course, I could have researched it myself but that is not really the point that I was trying to make. We see many programmes on immigration, but none about deportation, which I find strange. I suspect that there may be something to hide?? The trouble is that I have little faith in stats as we all know that they can be manipulated to lend credence to any viewpoint. Yes, I take your point about distance and that you can read about stats from far away, but that is the point - you are restricted to quoting stats, and not able to compare on the ground. It is not a cop-out but I would not wish to comment on the figures, as they did not come through. It does seem very high, though.

 

[Hastings gull]

Ok fair comment. Of course, I could have researched it myself but that is not really the point that I was trying to make. We see many programmes on immigration, but none about deportation, which I find strange. I suspect that there may be something to hide?? The trouble is that I have little faith in stats as we all know that they can be manipulated to lend credence to any viewpoint. Yes, I take your point about distance and that you can read about stats from far away, but that is the point - you are restricted to quoting stats, and not able to compare on the ground. It is not a cop-out but I would not wish to comment on the figures, as they did not come through. It does seem very high, though.

Apologies, you were referring to the link -I had misread it. I will look in due course.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think this is someone who is looking at the wider picture and trying to come up with a solution that is tolerable to everyone. If nations don't get together to find a workable solution that spreads the burden evenly across countries able to help then the burden will continue to placed on a small number of countries as it is now. Just because the UK says we can't take any more or Australia say look we've found a great way of keeping them away this doesn't solve the problem it just pushes it onto someone else's doorstep. the world has global organisations that enable countries to get together and discuss solutions to these problems, what this fella seems to be suggesting is that we use them to find a solution to this problem.

Of course this is the case -if we say no, then others will end up with more. there is no easy solution at all and I imagine that we will end up taking some, and proportionately more than others! Where he is being naïve, is when he thinks that us taking the 14,000 will necessarily solve matters. It will in the short term, but hardly in the long term, as those in other countries see the green light, and instead of 14,000 doubtless in a couple of years, he will be saying that we should all take our fair share of say 28,000. And in ten years time . . Yes, I know, or rather don't know what the best solution is!

 

[BadFish]

Of course this is the case -if we say no, then others will end up with more. there is no easy solution at all and I imagine that we will end up taking some, and proportionately more than others! Where he is being naïve, is when he thinks that us taking the 14,000 will necessarily solve matters. It will in the short term, but hardly in the long term, as those in other countries see the green light, and instead of 14,000 doubtless in a couple of years, he will be saying that we should all take our fair share of say 28,000. And in ten years time . . Yes, I know, or rather don't know what the best solution is!

Out of interest what makes you say proportionately more than others?

 

[Hastings gull]

Out of interest what makes you say proportionately more than others?

Because in general we Brits tend to be a tolerant lot and softies that we are, we will stick to agreements. There is nothing here for you to find a controversy.

 

[BadFish]

Because in general we Brits tend to be a tolerant lot and softies that we are, we will stick to agreements. There is nothing here for you to find a controversy.

Yes there is. If you wish to make a comparison on the number of asylum seekers that countries take you need to investigate more than one country. Surely the only way you can make such a claim is to use studies and statistics to see who is taking most? You have made a comparison of different countries based on the reputation of one country. Sorry but this just doesn't stack up.

For instance the Germans do no have the reputation for fair play that the Brits have yet they take way more than the UK. What about Iran? They take way more than the UK and have no such reputation for tolerance and bring softies.

While it it true that there are many other countries than the UK does more than there are also many that do.

 

[Ferring Marine]

Because in general we Brits tend to be a tolerant lot and softies that we are, we will stick to agreements. There is nothing here for you to find a controversy.

Nothing to do with us.
Let them sort their own problems out.
How many miles are they from ENGLAND and what connections do they have ?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Here is your answer. Merkel wants people distributed across the EU, numbers distributed by the size of the country and strength of economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...or-distributing-asylum-seekers-in-Europe.html

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes there is. If you wish to make a comparison on the number of asylum seekers that countries take you need to investigate more than one country. Surely the only way you can make such a claim is to use studies and statistics to see who is taking most? You have made a comparison of different countries based on the reputation of one country. Sorry but this just doesn't stack up.

For instance the Germans do no have the reputation for fair play that the Brits have yet they take way more than the UK. What about Iran? They take way more than the UK and have no such reputation for tolerance and bring softies.

While it it true that there are many other countries than the UK does more than there are also many that do.

And herein lies the crux of the matter - your blind faith in studies and stats and the fact that you have to use them when talking about countries thousands of miles away. My comment was jocular by the way -I assume you had realised that, but obviously not - the hallmark of a fanatic who cannot step back. I was referring in actual fact to the British sense of fair play in general - if you lived in Hastings and talked to the fishing fleet, you would be far less likely to believe that other countries stick to international agreements.

I am the wrong person to talk to about immigration into Germany; I am half-German, go there twice a year and lived there for 24 years. Merkel is being very selective, as the bulk of the immigration into Germany is from Europe, which, whilst creating a strain at times, is far less likely to result in strife than importing hundreds of thousands from the Third World. I did look at stats for Germany for 2011 - please don't give me any more - and it showed net immigration to be over 300,000, with most from Europe. This is roughly the same as UK. Included in that figure was: 16,000 entries and 15,000 departures from GB. In the last few years British Forces there have been entitled to vote in their local elections, and thus come into their registration of home owners, or whatever. So this figure could be referring to continual in and out postings of the few troops that are left there, and not to do with immigration at all. I am not sure, but this is why I do not have the naïve faith in stats that you do. Afterall, if the person who compiles the stats has a vested interest in a given result, well, hey presto, guess what the result will be! Furthermore, I wonder if you apply the logic that it is important to follow stats to yourself - somehow I doubt it. If you were considering buying a new Ford, you would thus take the stats on the brochure about petrol consumption, the loving detail that went its construction and its general durability as standard.
You do not see the local news, listen to eg the Jeremy Vine phone-in, see the blacked-out faces of the whistle-blowers being interviewed on TV, talk to people working in the "immigration industry" etc etc . This what I mean about being "on the ground". You cannot go on stats alone, particularly when your every-day experience tells you something different. I gave up on your link yesterday inferring that 51,000 had been deported after lengthy and rigorous investigations, as I found it too complicated and the mention of those leaving voluntarily may give a clue. I did, however, find this, which I strongly suspect gives a rather more accurate picture;
A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: ‘Of the 21,298 individuals identified as being an immigration offender, 6,232 were removed during the period January 2011 to December 2011.
‘It should be noted that removals are hindered by barriers such as outstanding appeals, documentation issues, and subjects absconding.’

 

[BadFish]

And herein lies the crux of the matter - your blind faith in studies and stats and the fact that you have to use them when talking about countries thousands of miles away. My comment was jocular by the way -I assume you had realised that, but obviously not - the hallmark of a fanatic who cannot step back. I was referring in actual fact to the British sense of fair play in general - if you lived in Hastings and talked to the fishing fleet, you would be far less likely to believe that other countries stick to international agreements.

I am the wrong person to talk to about immigration into Germany; I am half-German, go there twice a year and lived there for 24 years. Merkel is being very selective, as the bulk of the immigration into Germany is from Europe, which, whilst creating a strain at times, is far less likely to result in strife than importing hundreds of thousands from the Third World. I did look at stats for Germany for 2011 - please don't give me any more - and it showed net immigration to be over 300,000, with most from Europe. This is roughly the same as UK. Included in that figure was: 16,000 entries and 15,000 departures from GB. In the last few years British Forces there have been entitled to vote in their local elections, and thus come into their registration of home owners, or whatever. So this figure could be referring to continual in and out postings of the few troops that are left there, and not to do with immigration at all. I am not sure, but this is why I do not have the naïve faith in stats that you do. Afterall, if the person who compiles the stats has a vested interest in a given result, well, hey presto, guess what the result will be! Furthermore, I wonder if you apply the logic that it is important to follow stats to yourself - somehow I doubt it. If you were considering buying a new Ford, you would thus take the stats on the brochure about petrol consumption, the loving detail that went its construction and its general durability as standard.
You do not see the local news, listen to eg the Jeremy Vine phone-in, see the blacked-out faces of the whistle-blowers being interviewed on TV, talk to people working in the "immigration industry" etc etc . This what I mean about being "on the ground". You cannot go on stats alone, particularly when your every-day experience tells you something different. I gave up on your link yesterday inferring that 51,000 had been deported after lengthy and rigorous investigations, as I found it too complicated and the mention of those leaving voluntarily may give a clue. I did, however, find this, which I strongly suspect gives a rather more accurate picture;
A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: ‘Of the 21,298 individuals identified as being an immigration offender, 6,232 were removed during the period January 2011 to December 2011.
‘It should be noted that removals are hindered by barriers such as outstanding appeals, documentation issues, and subjects absconding.’

I agree that this is the crux of the matter but disagree that I am putting blind faith in the studies and stats that i am posting. My faith is not blind at all I have used those stats to back up the points i have been making. With respect in your last paragraph you have referenced people with blacked out faces on an undisclosed TV show without telling me what they said. This is in the paragraph after you accuse my stats of being biased. So what we have ended up with is a comparison between a fully cited and evidence based study of migration by the University of Oxford and the opinions (which you have not shared) of a nameless faceless person who appeared on a nameless TV show sand some other people who have phoned into a radio phone in. You gave up on the info from the University of Oxford as you think it was biased and too complicated (this is a complicated problem)and instead posted information from 'A spokesperson' from a newspaper that has a well documented and open opposition to immigration (it is interesting to note that you didn't provide a link to the original article) To be frank I know which set of information I am going to place more faith in.

Your example about stats seems to suggest that you are looking at some stats and then deciding they are not telling you everything you know. Here you seem to suggest that this is evidence that stats are useless. I would suggest that you then do a little more research and find the stats that give you the information you require.You Ford example is an example of only looking at one set of data and not bothering with the data you need to make a comparison. This is something you were guilty of a few posts ago.

I wasn't talking about migration to Germany per se, I was talking about how many Asylum Seekers they took in comparison to the UK.

Anyway it has been nice talking to you but i feel like we have discovered where our differences lay and are now going round in circles somewhat.

 

[Hampster Gull]

We need to do more

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree that this is the crux of the matter but disagree that I am putting blind faith in the studies and stats that i am posting. My faith is not blind at all I have used those stats to back up the points i have been making. With respect in your last paragraph you have referenced people with blacked out faces on an undisclosed TV show without telling me what they said. This is in the paragraph after you accuse my stats of being biased. So what we have ended up with is a comparison between a fully cited and evidence based study of migration by the University of Oxford and the opinions (which you have not shared) of a nameless faceless person who appeared on a nameless TV show sand some other people who have phoned into a radio phone in. You gave up on the info from the University of Oxford as you think it was biased and too complicated (this is a complicated problem)and instead posted information from 'A spokesperson' from a newspaper that has a well documented and open opposition to immigration (it is interesting to note that you didn't provide a link to the original article) To be frank I know which set of information I am going to place more faith in.

Your example about stats seems to suggest that you are looking at some stats and then deciding they are not telling you everything you know. Here you seem to suggest that this is evidence that stats are useless. I would suggest that you then do a little more research and find the stats that give you the information you require.You Ford example is an example of only looking at one set of data and not bothering with the data you need to make a comparison. This is something you were guilty of a few posts ago.

I wasn't talking about migration to Germany per se, I was talking about how many Asylum Seekers they took in comparison to the UK.

Anyway it has been nice talking to you but i feel like we have discovered where our differences lay and are now going round in circles somewhat.

"My faith is not blind" you say, but nonetheless you use it to back up points - that is the problem with your posts. Of course it is blind. My point about the TV interview (and the other examples) is not so much about what was said, but that your only reference to something that happens thousands of miles away is from consulting stats and studies. That is all you can use, and that fact that you are not on the ground, will inevitable colour your views. When your school is under great pressure to take more pupils, as my grand-daughter's is, then you are far less likely to believe someone who provides you with stats "demonstrating" that immigration is under control. Yes the quote was from the Daily Mail, which I knew you would pick up on, and of course you are doubtful, because the views expressed in this paper do not reflect your own. That is why I did not bother with a link, by the way. Does it ever not dawn on you that the person behind the "study" of whatever persuasion might just have an agenda, and the "result" might just reflect this? The DM undoubtedly has, but so might the University, for all you know. Evidence-based, all sounds lovely, and has a nice ring to it, but where did they go for that evidence? The study several months ago that talked of the positive effects on immigration (and I am sure that this is to an extent true) took no account of the problems with the infrastructure, and did not differentiate between EU and non EU. It then emerged that the person doing it had clear political links and told us all, years ago, that 13,000 Poles would come to Britain after an agreement -in the event it has estimated to be 700,000! Yes, many will have contributed magnificently, but you would be far less likely to believe any "study" that said individual put his name to.
I fully realise that you were not talking about Germany per se, but the fact you chose to use stats about Germany again shows the problems. These stats, as I showed you, could be quite unreliable, and Frau Merkel is being rather misleading. Yes, you are right - I could be doing more research, as you choose to do, but am very dubious about results given out by anyone when such a super-charged topic is involved, rather than yourself, who could not possibly believe what the DM writes, as that won't be convenient. You can't hypocritically claim that the Ford example I used is flawed because no other stats were used for comparison, and then say that you don't believe the article in the DM is to be taken seriously. There was another set of stats, but if it is inconvenient, then of course you reject it.

 

[beorhthelm]

its was pointed out on a programme this weekend that there was 3 years of comparative peace, certainly not open civil war, after the Arab spring uprising/overthrow of Gadaffi. this recent anarchy has come from the internal conflict between groups that don't appear willing to accept or deal with the outcomes of democratic process.

 

[BadFish]

"My faith is not blind" you say, but nonetheless you use it to back up points - that is the problem with your posts. Of course it is blind. My point about the TV interview (and the other examples) is not so much about what was said, but that your only reference to something that happens thousands of miles away is from consulting stats and studies. That is all you can use, and that fact that you are not on the ground, will inevitable colour your views. When your school is under great pressure to take more pupils, as my grand-daughter's is, then you are far less likely to believe someone who provides you with stats "demonstrating" that immigration is under control. Yes the quote was from the Daily Mail, which I knew you would pick up on, and of course you are doubtful, because the views expressed in this paper do not reflect your own. That is why I did not bother with a link, by the way. Does it ever not dawn on you that the person behind the "study" of whatever persuasion might just have an agenda, and the "result" might just reflect this? The DM undoubtedly has, but so might the University, for all you know. Evidence-based, all sounds lovely, and has a nice ring to it, but where did they go for that evidence? The study several months ago that talked of the positive effects on immigration (and I am sure that this is to an extent true) took no account of the problems with the infrastructure, and did not differentiate between EU and non EU. It then emerged that the person doing it had clear political links and told us all, years ago, that 13,000 Poles would come to Britain after an agreement -in the event it has estimated to be 700,000! Yes, many will have contributed magnificently, but you would be far less likely to believe any "study" that said individual put his name to.
I fully realise that you were not talking about Germany per se, but the fact you chose to use stats about Germany again shows the problems. These stats, as I showed you, could be quite unreliable, and Frau Merkel is being rather misleading. Yes, you are right - I could be doing more research, as you choose to do, but am very dubious about results given out by anyone when such a super-charged topic is involved, rather than yourself, who could not possibly believe what the DM writes, as that won't be convenient. You can't hypocritically claim that the Ford example I used is flawed because no other stats were used for comparison, and then say that you don't believe the article in the DM is to be taken seriously. There was another set of stats, but if it is inconvenient, then of course you reject it.

So you are seriously suggesting that the daily mail quoting 'a spokesperson' is comparable with a cited, evidence based study by the university of Oxford?

No wonder we disagree on this topic.