EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Archy]

Belgium is a country?

Excuse me sir.  We like to be thought of as a speed bumba instead.  You know "Brave Little Belgium" and all that.

No, it's more like a highway for German armed forces to use when invading France. Like Denmark, when they invade Scandinavia, but with less bacon.

[Martinus]

I donated to Polish Humanitarian Action helping the refugees. 

[Ancient Demon]

I donated to Polish Humanitarian Action helping the refugees. 

How much?

[Syt]

Classy, bragging about donations.

[Syt]

I find it ironic that there is so much intra-European racism in this thread. The selfishness and parochialism of certain sections of the European population, plus the incompetence and shilly-shallying of their governments, is fairly small beer compared to the dreadful events and behaviour in the Middle East itself 

Oh, absolutely agreed. While some of the bickering is the expected part of finding a common consensus, it's become pretty clear in recent years that the EU is only popular if they do stuff for its members, but never if it requires something of them. Not to mention that pretty much all nations flaunt the rules all the time - not adhering to budgetary rules, not registering refugees for years (which only became a problem recently because of the increased number of refugees), introducing or trying to introduce legislation running counter to EU rules, flip flopping on the Dublin agreements, trying to abolish the pluralist society in a certain country etc. etc. etc. - with little to no consequence, because at the end of the day the EU has no real teeth to enforce its rules except for slaps on the wrist in the form of laughable fines.

[Martinus]

Classy, bragging about donations.

[Liep]

Well, I guess it's preferable to forcing the refugees to cross the Danube and then wander into minefields.

Croatia to allow refugees free passage:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates

[Syt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/business/international/europe-must-plan-for-immigration-juggernaut.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

A Migration Juggernaut Is Headed for Europe

European leaders probably don't want to hear this now, as they frantically try to close their borders to stop hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants and asylum seekers escaping hunger and violence in Africa and the Middle East. But they are dealing with the unstoppable force of demography.

Fortified borders may slow it, somewhat. But the sooner Europe acknowledges it faces several decades of heavy immigration from its neighboring regions, the sooner it will develop the needed policies to help integrate large migrant populations into its economies and societies.

That will be no easy task. It has long been a challenge for all rich countries, of course, but in crucial respects Europe does a particularly poor job.

Perhaps it's not surprising, as a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found, that it is harder for immigrants to get a job in European Union nations than in most other rich countries. But that doesn't explain why it is also harder for their European-born children, who report even more discrimination than their parents and suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the children of the native-born.

Rather than fortifying borders, European countries would do better to improve on this record. The benefits would be substantial, for European citizens and the rest of the world.

Over the summer, as Hungary hurried to lay razor wire along its southern border and E.U. leaders hashed out plans to destroy smugglers' boats off the coast of North Africa, the United Nations Population Division quietly released its latest reassessment of future population growth.

Gone is the expectation that the world's population will peak at nine billion in 2050. Now the U.N. predicts it will hit almost 10 billion at midcentury and surpass 11 billion by 2100. And most of the growth will come from the poor, strife-ridden regions of the world that have been sending migrants scrambling to Europe in search of safety and a better life.

The population of Africa, which has already grown 50 percent since the turn of the century, is expected to double by 2050, to 2.5 billion people. South Asia's population may grow by more than half a billion. And Palestine's population density is expected to double to 1,626 people per square kilometer (4,211 per square mile), three times that of densely populated India.

Over the next several decades, millions of people are likely to leave these regions, forced out by war, lack of opportunity and conflicts over resources set in motion by climate change. Rich Europe is inevitably going to be a prime destination of choice.

"With Africa's population likely to increase by more than three billion over the next 85 years, the European Union could be facing a wave of migration that makes current debates about accepting hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers seem irrelevant," wrote Adair Turner, the former chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority and now chairman of the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

Europe's initial reaction to the flow has been mixed, at best. Germany, notably, has committed real resources to help cover the basic needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees it expects to welcome this year. But that is hardly the spirit across the board. And Europe is still mostly focused on steeling its borders, even to the point of closing many of its once free-flowing internal boundaries.

Better options exist. The rich history of immigration around the world suggests that new migrant populations could be integrated into the European social fabric to the benefit of Europeans, the new immigrants and even the regions of the world they left behind.

Take Britain, where the government of Prime Minister David Cameron came into office promising to cut net annual immigration from "the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands."

Researchers at Britain's National Institute for Economic and Social Research and the University of Ottawa estimated that carrying out the policy would cut Britain's income per head, increase public spending and raise income taxes to pay for it. All things considered, by 2060 Britons' wages would be 3.3 percentage points lower than had the government left the immigration rate alone.

These dynamics apply across the developed world. Frédéric Docquier of the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, Caglar Ozden from the World Bank and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, found that immigration from 1990 through 2000 had a positive effect on the wages of native workers — including low-wage workers — in virtually all the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Rich countries with lower fertility rates and older populations benefit from young migrants of working age, who help rev up their slowing labor supply. From 2000 to 2010, migrants accounted for nearly two-thirds of European labor force growth. Immigrants bring diversity to complement the attributes of domestic workers: different levels of education and productivity and different consumption patterns.

They spur business investment to take advantage of the additional labor supply. They prompt domestic workers to switch into occupations that leverage their language skills and other comparative advantages.

Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, migrants are often highly educated, and they generally do not burden the public purse. Stefano Scarpetta, director of the department of employment, labor and social affairs at the O.E.C.D., said immigrants often contribute more in taxes than they draw in public benefits.

What's more, the countries sending migrants abroad often benefit, too.

"Remittances transfer some of the gains from the increased productivity of migrants back to the natives that remained in the home country," wrote Julian di Giovanni of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Andrei Levchenko of the University of Michigan and Francesc Ortega of the City University of New York.

Of course, the most sensible response to large-scale immigration must include helping unstable, impoverished countries in Africa and beyond overcome the demographic pressure that stunts their development, as Mr. Turner advocates. Investment in human and physical capital simply can't keep up with population growth. Neither can job creation.

Achieving the demographic transition to lower mortality and fertility rates will require not only investing in women's education and encouraging contraceptive use but also freeing women to make their own reproductive choices.

In the meantime, Europe's challenge is real. Receiving millions of migrants of different races, religions and cultures from far-flung lands will pose political, economic and social challenges to European countries that remain to this day fairly homogeneous.

Social scientists have acknowledged the importance of Europe's racial and cultural homogeneity in building political support for expensive welfare states with robust safety nets. It was easier for white, Christian Europeans to tolerate high taxes if they went to pay for benefits for white, Christian Europeans like themselves.

Access to jobs is a critical precondition for success. But the overall task is greater, to eventually close the socio-economic gaps between immigrants and their descendants and native Europeans. "What matters is the integration of the migrants in receiving countries," Mr. Scarpetta said. "This will not occur by itself."

In the end, the choice is clear. Europe's best shot at prosperity is to build upon the diversity that immigration will bring.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/hoe-de-eu-de-controle-over-de-migratiebewegingen-verloor/article-opinion-603749.html

some horrible google-translate english:

'How the EU lost control of migration flows'

"Even for those who do not apply for asylum are EU ports since September 1, 2015 in fact wide open," writes Marc Bossuyt, the Honorary Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. He outlined the extent of the problem if countries fail in their duty to guard the external borders.

Thanks to payment of 12,000 US dollars to a people smuggler, succeeded a former Afghan interpreter of the Belgian NATO troops in Afghanistan, managed in Greece on December 7, 2008 to arrive. Because he is our soldiers "very friendly" thought, he chose to go two months later to Belgium. However, since he had entered the EU through Greece, he was on June 15, 2009, transferred under the Dublin Regulation, accompanied to Greece. There he was held in poor conditions for four days. Because in addition to the asylum procedure was flawed and inadequate living conditions of asylum seekers, Greece was supported by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on January 21, 2011 sentenced to 1,000 euros in damages. Belgium, which was held indirectly responsible, had to pay the man 24 900 euro. Since then, no more applicant to be sent back to Greece.

Dublin, the key element of the Common European Asylum System

The Dublin Regulation, a key piece of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), is the oldest European asylum instrument dating back to 1990. This regulation, which assumes that each EU Member State shall respect the non-refoulement principle, based on sincere cooperation, reciprocity and mutual confidence between the EU Member States on asylum. It provides a simple procedure to determine who the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application without any prior examination of the human rights situation in the EU Member State. The entire CEAS will be jeopardized if a participating Member State fails to comply with the obligations arising from the inadequacy of its monitoring of its external borders.

After all, when in a building with many gates open one port, the entire building is open! The clauses which allow Member States, if they wish, to examine an asylum application, even where another Member State is responsible, in order to create an obligation to do so, even if he does not want, the Strasbourg Court has to those clauses given a radically different meaning than was intended when drafting.

Strasbourg

Rapidly successive judgments of the Strasbourg Court, the Dublin Regulation also systematically dismantled. On October 21, 2014 Italy was condemned for the asylum seekers (Sharifi et al) with a ferry boat had returned to Greece without examining the individual situation of each of them. The Court requires that the determination of the State responsible for examining an asylum application, the same (weighty) procedure is followed as for the treatment of an application on the merits. Italy had the Court nevertheless pointed out that denial of access to consider the territory as "collective expulsions" to undergo the states would oblige mass invasions of irregular migrants. How effective has dismantled the Court the Dublin Regulation, is demonstrated by the fact that, at the time of the proceedings of that case before the Court, several of the 35 plaintiffs in Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland stayed.

Inhuman treatment

On November 4, 2014 the Strasbourg Court held that Switzerland an Afghan couple (Tarakhel) with six children could not even return to Italy - even though it acknowledged that its situation is not comparable to those in Greece - before having received individual ensure that the Italian government would take charge of them in a manner appropriate to their age. Only three judges felt that nothing showed that, from a material, physical or psychological perspective, she ran a sufficiently real and imminent risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

On July 7, 2015 the Strasbourg Court held that Belgium should not assume that France would honor its treaty obligations towards a Serbian Roma family (VM et al). The Danish court, a former vice president of the Danish Council for Refugees, pointed out in his dissenting opinion that this judgment could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of the cooperation among EU Member States regarding the treatment of asylum applications. The Swiss court pointed out that the Court did not appear to know that France is party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Hungarian that Serbia, a member state of the Council of Europe.

Luxembourg

Without against the Strasbourg MSS judgment to go into the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg on December 21, 2011 to nevertheless attempt to weaken somewhat by stating that asylum seekers may not be transferred, if Member States know about them have it there is - on the asylum procedure and reception conditions of asylum seekers in the Member State responsible - "fundamental flaws" occur (and not a mere violation of a fundamental right). It is strange that the Luxembourg Court has approved, without committing to affect the movement from the State relative to whom the Dublin regulation can not be applied.

After Strasbourg judgments undermining the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States, the Court of Luxembourg on December 18, 2014, to the surprise of many, the rejected draft agreement for EU accession to the ECHR. The Court of Luxembourg points out that it is precisely this principle allows for maintaining an area without internal borders. Except in exceptional circumstances, Member States should not consider whether a Member State other EU fundamental rights is respected in a specific case. If the Court of Strasbourg, this would require, even if EU law imposes an obligation of mutual trust, would, according to the Court of Luxembourg, the EU accession to the ECHR bring the EU of the underlying equilibrium out of balance and the autonomy of EU law undermine.


Fulfill obligations


One way this could consist, in case there is complained that the situation would be contrary to a contracting party to the ECHR with that Convention to investigate complaints compared to those countries (such as Greece and Italy) and not compared to another country (such as Belgium and Switzerland). Common faith does not require a priori be excluded that an EU Member State may violate the ECHR, but - at least when it concerns an EU member state or Schengen State - to direct this violation responsible State, which in accountability must be established, and not a State which previously could be held indirectly responsible.

If the few States which fully comply with their international obligations on human rights and refugees, everyone should welcome that choose to live in those countries rather than in its country of origin or entry into the EU, it is particularly difficult for those States to fulfill their obligations after coming.

External borders wide open

This is all the more true because since February 23, 2012 the Strasbourg Court all external maritime borders of the Member States of the Council of Europe has declared wide open for anyone but applies for asylum. When from Libya, in the absence of effective state authority, numerous migrants trying to reach Lampedusa, they were initially by the Italian coastguard pushed back to Libya. In a case concerning 11 Eritreans and 13 Somalis (Hirsi Jamaa and Others), the Court of Strasbourg, however, that Italy had to pay them 15,000 euros each. Since then, the Italian coast guard goes, assisted by the European border control agency (Frontex), the migrant retrieve from the sea to take them to Italy.

Consequently, an increasing number of migrants risking the crossing with ever gammeler boats and with an increasing number of drowning deaths and unscrupulous smugglers multimillionaire. It's revenge calling that illusion by many Africans that if they entrust their hard together geraapte possessions to these smugglers, their prosperous fate awaits within the EU. And although there is an effective state authority in Turkey, also depart from there tons of migrants, mostly from the Middle East (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria), to Greece.

Just from Syria there are millions of war refugees - caught in camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey - who dream to come to the EU. In Greece, no more fingerprints taken and via Macedonia and Serbia they travel to Hungary and Austria and from there to the promised lands (Germany and Sweden) where accommodating a multitude cost of this by UNHCR in neighboring countries of Syria.

Even for those who do not apply for asylum are EU ports since September 1, 2015 in fact wide open. The Strasbourg Court has then Italy condemned it in September 2011 has proceeded to "collective expulsion" of three illegally on Lampedusa arrived Tunisians (Khlaifia ea) "without a genuine and differentiated way their individual state to have observed."

Reprove the Hungarian courts and the Montenegrin courts in their joint dissenting opinion, however, that - as the Tunisians were not eligible to enter Italy - no other studies than for their identity, nationality and the existence of a safe country of return was required, which also happened individually and in a language they understood. Together with the Belgian court that judges also found that the grant of 10,000 euros to each of these three Tunisians were on the high side.

Schengen

Although the revised Dublin III - Regulation of June 26, 2013, which has attempted to take into account the case law of Strasbourg and Luxembourg on the MSS problem only came into force since January 1st 2014, should now be established that they are neither legal, functions or in fact. The principle of the responsibility of each Member State to monitor its borders, if necessary assisted by FRONTEX is therefore abandoned.

Every asylum seeker who manages to enter the Schengen area, can now freely travel to the country of his choice (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, ...), without running the risk remains to be returned to his country of that zone has arrived. The two most important of these countries (Greece and Italy) do not even fulfill their obligations to the taking of fingerprints under the revised Eurodac regulation of June 26, 2013.

Mandatory coverage

The only alternative which is thought, appears to be the compulsory dispersion of a number of seekers. The numbers on July 20th, 2015 agreed by the European Council (32 256 people in Italy and Greece and 22 504 individuals from third countries) represent only a fraction of those who are on the move, let alone those who wish to come to the EU. The mandatory distribution seems not only very difficult to get things done (especially in the former East European EU member states), but also has weaknesses:
1.De incentive to protect one's borders will be lost.
2.The only to a distribution of applicants who are in the countries of entry (such as Greece and Italy) or even in a third country outside the EU but not the applicants who are already in the countries of destination of their choice ( Germany, Sweden, etc.) have arrived.
3.Wegens free movement within the Schengen area can not be prevented these applicants, once arrived in a Schengen country, from there will travel to the Schengen country of their preference.


Lost control

Which hypothesis is taken to face, it is difficult to be adhered to the principle of free movement within the Schengen area to persons authorized to reside there, have not obtained. The Schengen system and the Dublin Regulation are closely linked. With regard to asylum seekers, the Dublin regulation is the counterweight of free movement within the Schengen zone. When the Dublin regulation is not functioning, it may Member States that wish, no longer be allowed to ascertain whether the persons entering their country, have obtained admission. Obviously no prejudice to the freedom of movement within the Schengen zone of EU citizens and of aliens exempt from visa requirement or hold a valid visa. Those Member States which wish to (the others have only the consequences of undergoing) must be able to verify this, wherever and whenever, and in particular at the internal borders of the countries that do not comply with their EU obligations.


Since neither the asylum procedure, nor care, nor the European social services are organized, is to hold the difficult to the free movement of persons who are not unconditionally authorized to stay within the Schengen zone. Despite the ineffective are the Dublin procedure, the EU continues to frantically deny the ban on checking the internal borders of the Schengen area to be suspended. Thus, it can not assess or who exceeds the internal borders, it has obtained permission to enter this area or stay inside. It is thus that the EU lost control of migration movements.

[Duque de Bragança]

More "racism" in the illegal migrant crisis, from Charlie Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo may face legal action over cartoons
Controversial magazine may face legal action for inciting hate crimes after publishing cartoons about Alan Kurdi.
15 Sep 2015 11:11 GMT | Human Rights, Mediterranean, Refugees, France



The controversial French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo may face legal action for inciting hate crimes after publishing cartoons about drowned Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi in its latest issue.

The first cartoon shows a clown and what appears to be the toddler with a sign: "Welcome immigrants, so close to his goal. Promotion: Two children for the price of one."




The second cartoon, "Proof that Christians walk on water" shows a man supposedly resembling Jesus walking on water as a partially submerged child says "Muslim children drown."



Heart-rending photos of the toddler's lifeless body washed ashore on a Turkish beach last week sparked global horror and debate on refugees.

The magazine's cartoons sparked outrage on social media.

Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, tweeted that the group would consider reporting Charlie Hebdo's actions as "an incitement to hate crime & persecution before the International Criminal Court".


He continued:
D Peter Herbert OBE @herbert_donald
Charlie Hebdo is a purely racist, xenophobic and ideologically bankrupt publication that represents the moral decay of France.
2:22 AM - 14 Sep 2015
  492 492 Retweets  237 237 favorites

In January, armed men who identified as being members of al-Qaeda stormed the magazine's Paris offices, killing 11 people in the building and injuring another 11.

The magazine had published images mocking Prophet Muhammad.

A manhunt ensued and several  related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region, where a further five people were killed and 11 wounded.

International Criminal Court? Before Assad, Daesh and the like? Wow, just wow. Outrage industry at its finest.
Somebody should tell the PC crusaders that leftist Charlie Hebdo is in favour of unrestricted immigration in France and vitriolic, ironic satire is their speciality. Cartoons mock the inaction. See the first cartoon on the left, front page of Charlie Hebdo last week (Welcome! This is your home!).
Conveniently forgotten by Al Jazeera.

[Liep]

Hate crime? Who's the victim? French society or the EU?

[Legbiter]

Croatia to allow refugees free passage:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates

Croatia has no gimedats for them so the horde will move on.

[Tamas]

First indication seems to be that they are registering them and sending them to camps instead. I am guessing Frau Merkel called them about their earlier idea.

[Liep]

According to this map in a Vienna station Femern is Danish! Wooo!

EDIT: And Sild as well!

[Grallon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/business/international/europe-must-plan-for-immigration-juggernaut.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

What happens after these hordes have invaded Europe and transformed it into a copy of the shitholes they escaped from?  It bears repeating that the Dark Ages was the direct consequence of a similar wave of migrants from the 5th century on...



G.