Economic freedom of movement

[Aexodus]

Brexit was the expression of British voters to reduce immigration. The tragedy is, Brexit will only directly limit relatively more educated, literate immigrants, as they represent only half. Regardless, brexit represented a rising sentiment across Europe against the EU, which is the organisation promoting the mass immigration itself. The very concept of open bordersis not a popular one, regardless of any charter.

The migrants that actually suffer most are the well educated ones from Europe, who have to take this L because apparently you're morally not allowed to oppose other kinds of migrant.

[hellheaven1987]

The very concept of open bordersis not a popular one, regardless of any charter.

Yes, raise the tariff economic border too!!

Immigration is always a double-edge sword (in fact nearly all issues/policies are), just common population is often unable to see other edge... Well cannot blame them, since often government cannot see that too.

[Aexodus]

Free freedom of movement of money is completely different of movement of people, money doesn't require housing, education and healthcare.

[hellheaven1987]

Free freedom of movement of money is completely different of movement of people, money doesn't require housing, education and healthcare.

It requires manpower to maintain the financial sector. Besides, free movement of citizens within EU zone is never motivated by pure economic reason.

They do bear the brunt of responsibility for protection of Europe's borders because of unavoidable geographical reasons, but they get a LOT of help in this regard from the EU (aka the net contributors which includes Italy but definitely not Greece lol).

Logically the cost actually should be all paid by EU since it is EU's idea.

[Aexodus]

Thing is, some countries are net contributors and some are net recipitents.

How is this method of population growth possibly sustainable, given the social friction it creates for the working class in the UK source: wiki

About 70% of the population increase between the 2001 and 2011 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration. 7.5 million people (11.9 percent of the population at the time) were born abroad, although the census gives no indication of their immigration status or intended length of stay.[2]

[Copperknickers II]

And unlike most other Western countries, Israel actually has a government that looks out for the interests of its own people. This, is really only mirrored by Eastern European countries like Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

I'd really like to unpack this because I don't understand how someone can grow up in the same country as me and actually say that. In what universe do the governments of Czechia, Hungary and Poland 'look out for the interests of their people'? Their standard of life is awful compared to the UK, their governments censor the media and undermine democracy and the rule of law at every turn, they are corrupt and they are decades behind the UK on minority rights including women and LGBT rights.

Israel refers to the illegal immigrants as 'infiltrators', akin to the Hungarian Prime Minister's referral of them as 'invaders'. This, is in stark contrast to what we are told to think in the West, all these people are 'refugees' and it's our moral responsibility to help them. We, in the West, wouldn't be allowed to criticise immigrants. Diversity is our strength, ain't that right guys?

Who has ever said that all migrants are refugees? It's widely acknowledged that many migrants are unlikely to have any grounds for asylum, although this has to be assessed on a case by case basis. It's our legal responsibility to do this and those countries which do not adhere to UN-sanctioned legal duties are chipping away at Western civilisation and values more than any migrants could do. Although this seems to be a general trend in Israel which seems dead set on becoming a fully paid up third world country by 2050. I wonder how long it will be before we see Israeli economic migrants knocking at Europe's door.

What obligation does Europe have to house the third world? With its own citizens taking the hit, with increased competition for housing and low-skilled labour.

Immigration has been shown to improve the economy, and Europeans often don't even apply for low skilled jobs so they can't exactly be said to be competing with anyone for them. (Full disclosure, that source also states that non-EEA migrants in the UK contributed less in tax than was spent on them in government benefits and does mention some disadvantages relating to pressure on services and infrastructure).

If Europe is going to be a dumping ground for the world's migrants, then we may as well be frank about it. Because that's what we are being used as, with no thought to what problems this brings to our working classes, and no thought to the irreversible change it brings to Europe, both politically, and culturally. The migrant crisis, propagated by crazy globablists, has awakened the populist and identitarian movement across Europe, which is not a good thing. We all know what happened last time the nuttiest elements of European nationalism came to power.

The migrant crisis was caused by Western military intervention in the Middle East, combined with the ill-advised acceptance of dysfunctional Southern European countries into the EU before they were ready. These countries could not protect their own borders and their long-suffering Northern European subsidisers paid the price of their incompetence on their behalf (not for the first time), and received about as much gratitude as you'd get removing a thorn from the paw of a rabid cat. Given that deporting a million people back to their home countries, most of whom are from active warzones or countries which have promised to execute them for treason if they return, is impossible, Northern Europe was forced into allowing them to stay.

That's notwithstanding the many thousands who have been deported and the agreements made with Turkey and Libyan factions which have largely stemmed the flow, putting lie to your narrative that the EU is somehow just rolling out the welcome mat and having a cup of tea rather than actively and of late quite successfully doing everything legally in their power to abate the crisis.

Most people who entered Europe in the migrant crisis, were not refugees. Most of them, were economic migrants.

Source? I find that highly questionable.

[mongrel]

I'd really like to unpack this because I don't understand how someone can grow up in the same country as me and actually say that.

It's code for saying he likes their policies. Hell, the Czechs were so racist, they could stand living in their own country (Czechoslovakia).Their societies were held back by decades of foreign occupation.Should not have been let into the EU until they were ready , in my opinion.

http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/ha...ts-methodology

[sumskilz]

Who has ever said that all migrants are refugees? It's widely acknowledged that many migrants are unlikely to have any grounds for asylum, although this has to be assessed on a case by case basis. It's our legal responsibility to do this and those countries which do not adhere to UN-sanctioned legal duties are chipping away at Western civilisation and values more than any migrants could do.

It's a choice by some European governments to expand the definition of refugee:

According to Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, as modified by the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is defined as a person who ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’ This definition implies that several qualifying conditions apply to be considered a refugee: (1) presence outside home country; (2) well-founded fear of persecution (being at risk of harm is insufficient reason in the absence of discriminatory persecution); (3) incapacity to enjoy the protection of one’s own state from the persecution feared. The definition of refugees was actually intended to exclude internally displaced persons, economic migrants, victims of natural disasters, and persons fleeing violent conflict but not subject to discrimination amounting to persecution...

The Geneva Convention does not guarantee asylum-seekers the right to be granted refugee status, even if they fulfil the conditions to be considered refugees; this remains at state discretion... Each state is also free to establish the conditions for granting asylum. This situation is reinforced by the fact that no body is entitled to interpret the Geneva Convention authoritatively, unlike most other international human rights treaties. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has the duty to supervise its application, but has no authority to provide mandatory interpretations. The task of interpreting the Convention has thus fallen to domestic law-makers and courts.

Because of their vulnerable situation, asylum-seekers are sometimes forced to enter their country of refuge unlawfully. The Geneva Convention does not stipulate that states are required to grant asylum-seekers entry to their territory.

Source (with links to the original documents)

[Aexodus]

I'd really like to unpack this because I don't understand how someone can grow up in the same country as me and actually say that. In what universe do the governments of Czechia, Hungary and Poland 'look out for the interests of their people'? Their standard of life is awful compared to the UK, their governments censor the media and undermine democracy and the rule of law at every turn, they are corrupt and they are decades behind the UK on minority rights including women and LGBT rights.

I agree that Eastern Europe in general is quite poor, but they are protecting their country from massive cultural and demographic change, which is the least they can do. They aren't alone in censorship of the media though..

There does appear to be a problem with rape laws in Hungary, Herreport say nearly half of Hungarians say rape is 'justifiable'. But how this relates to immigration, I do not know.
http://www.herreport.org/blog/2016/1...s-justifiable/

What certainly won't help however, is taking in people from the Middle East and North Africa where rape per capita is 353% higher than Hungary. So compared to who you say they have take in, Hungary's doing just fine with women's rights.

They are decades behind the UK? I would challenge that when it comes to gay marriage, they're right where they want to be and so am I in the UK. That implies they have an imperative to adopt the same laws, which I don't agree with.

Who has ever said that all migrants are refugees? It's widely acknowledged that many migrants are unlikely to have any grounds for asylum, although this has to be assessed on a case by case basis. It's our legal responsibility to do this and those countries which do not adhere to UN-sanctioned legal duties are chipping away at Western civilisation and values more than any migrants could do. Although this seems to be a general trend in Israel which seems dead set on becoming a fully paid up third world country by 2050. I wonder how long it will be before we see Israeli economic migrants knocking at Europe's door.

So you say that many migrants don't have asylum grounds, and then say it's our 'legal responsibility' to take hundreds of thousands of people. What are western values? I'm western. Taking in ridiculous numbers of migrants to the point where it represents 55% of total growth is not omen of my values, among a number of things we could disagree on when it comes to what western values are. They aren't a solid unchanging set of rules or something. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...lation-growth/

More than half (55%) of the increase of the UK population between 1991 and 2016 was due to the direct contribution of net migration.

This kind of growth model is not sustainable. And it isnt a long-standing western value otherwise the West as a culture would have been replaced long ago.

EDIT: sumskillz pretty sums up how western nations are bending the rules in order to take more 'refugees'. If you're a refugee the need okay, there's better ways I can help you like charity and aid, but if you're an illegal immigrated asylum seeker, I simply do no that feel morally obliged to share my space with illegals. It's that simple.

If someone is in extreme poverty, why does that mean he has to come live in my country, and why am I obliged to let him enter it, often illegally so.

Why do people like Dave Miliband, the son of a Marxist, get influential positions when it come so to our immigration policy?!?

Immigration has been shown to improve the economy, and Europeans often don't even apply for low skilled jobs so they can't exactly be said to be competing with anyone for them. (Full disclosure, that source also states that non-EEA migrants in the UK contributed less in tax than was spent on them in government benefits and does mention some disadvantages relating to pressure on services and infrastructure).

At the end of the day, immigration helps the businessman and not the employee. It improve so the economy, of course it would when you increase a factor of production (in this case labour). But labour is paid for by wages, and unless the extra revenue produced by this extra labour pays for itself, which it doesn't in low-skilled labour sectors, then working class communities will see their wages fall. This will make them, angry, and hostile to institutions like say, the European Union, or George Soros funded NGOs like Frontex.

Then we should be working on how to get Europeans doing those jobs, instead of getting foreigner's to do it for them. British jobs should be for British people first, and outnumbered government should not be importing an entire workforce to do it instead.

Also, as well as the disadvantages you mentioned, mass immigration depresses wages, especially in countries like Sweden https://fullfact.org/immigration/imm...s-immigration/

The migrant crisis was caused by Western military intervention in the Middle East, combined with the ill-advised acceptance of dysfunctional Southern European countries into the EU before they were ready. These countries could not protect their own borders and their long-suffering Northern European subsidisers paid the price of their incompetence on their behalf (not for the first time), and received about as much gratitude as you'd get removing a thorn from the paw of a rabid cat. Given that deporting a million people back to their home countries, most of whom are from active warzones or countries which have promised to execute them for treason if they return, is impossible, Northern Europe was forced into allowing them to stay.

That is not the fault of the ordinary Brit. We saw in the Brexit vote, Stoke probably one of the most working class towns in the country voted 70% leave. People don't want the migrants, that's what matters. Also, it's funny how the military intervention caused by mostly the US, alongside with Poland and the U.K., yet it is Germany and Sweden that are most honour bound to take million shares of migrants over years and years, it never seems to end.

Also, this from the Polish PM https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ne...he-middle-east

"We are consistently of the belief, formulated by Law and Justice ahead of the elections of 2015, that we will not be allowing migrants from the Middle East and Northern Africa to enter Poland," Morawiecki said in an interview with Radio Poland.

Quite honestly, it looks like Poland aren't gonna have to take their 'moral duty' for invading the Middle East. You know why? Because they have leaders that stand up for the Polish people.

I find it it strange how you seem to think, that if I invade a country for x, y, or z reason, I then have to take unending stream of migrants from throughout the third world, which is breeding faster than we can ever handle. It's more of a drain on these countries, with what little wealth/capital they had leaving the country and lining the pockets of people smugglers. As long as we offer free housing and other benefits, they will keep coming, and the third world will get worse. By helping, you're making it worse. Better help these people before they even think of leaving their countries.

This is the greatest populate shift since the Neolithic. We're not obliged to let an unprecedented influx of migrants just walk all over us because no the UN tells us to.

That's notwithstanding the many thousands who have been deported and the agreements made with Turkey and Libyan factions which have largely stemmed the flow, putting lie to your narrative that the EU is somehow just rolling out the welcome mat and having a cup of tea rather than actively and of late quite successfully doing everything legally in their power to abate the crisis.

And that includes Soros funded organisations like Frontex who brought even more migrants in the Mediterranean to Europe? That includes the EU filing a legal case against Eastern European countries that don't want to go along with their mass immigration plan? To say the EU wants strong borders is a fine joke.

Source? I find that highly questionable.

Here's a few

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6836306.html
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...scending-into/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...says-1.2511133
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-boat-crossing

[Copperknickers II]

I agree that Eastern Europe in general is quite poor, but they are protecting their country from massive cultural and demographic change, which is the least they can do.

They're 'protecting' their country from economic growth, increase in labour force and hard-working people who want to make a living for themselves. I think the people of Eastern Europe can do without that kind of 'protection'.

There does appear to be a problem with rape laws in Hungary, Herreport say nearly half of Hungarians say rape is 'justifiable'. But how this relates to immigration, I do not know.
http://www.herreport.org/blog/2016/1...s-justifiable/

'Damn migrants, coming over here and making our women feel unsafe. That's OUR job.' It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, how unironically hypocritical the Far Right are.

So you say that many migrants don't have asylum grounds, and then say it's our 'legal responsibility' to take hundreds of thousands of people.

It's our legal responsibility to process asylum applications of those who make them. We don't know whether migrants do or don't have grounds for asylum until their situation has been investigated, it has to be done on a case by case basis. There are some Syrians who are not eligible for asylum and some Bosnians, Pakistanis and Moroccans who are, there's no way to predict who is and who isn't until you've made enquiries into their situation. It is also our legal right to deport migrants whose applications fail, or who do not make asylum applications. And that is exactly what happens where possible, outside of Germany which had a migration amnesty due to the sheer impossibility of processing a million applications and hundreds of thousands of deportation orders. Unfortunately it's easier said than done to deport people, if their home country refuses to take them back (as often happens) or if they disappear from the authorities' radar.

EDIT: [I]sumskillz pretty sums up how western nations are bending the rules in order to take more 'refugees'. If you're a refugee the need okay, there's better ways I can help you like charity and aid, but if you're an illegal immigrated asylum seeker, I simply do no that feel morally obliged to share my space with illegals. It's that simple.

Sumskilz' post made little sense. The legal meaning of 'refugee' is someone who has been granted asylum status. There is a legal obligation in EU countries to process claims of asylum seekers as and when they are made. Once someone has been officially designated as a refugee they are legal residents of a country and have the right to remain (for a limited time, subject to renewal). So there is no leeway there, it's not government policy but a legal obligation which you can disagree with all you like, but nothing will be done about it unless the asylum law is revoked. And since it's an integral part of EU law, there's no way for an EU country to unilaterally revoke the legal framework for asylum without putting themself at risk of major sanctions if not explusion. Soon that won't be a problem for the UK of course but this thread is not about the UK.

If someone is in extreme poverty, why does that mean he has to come live in my country, and why am I obliged to let him enter it, often illegally so.

Illegal migrants are by definition NOT allowed to enter Europe, but they are allowed to remain in Europe if they make an asylum application once they have arrived here. That entitles them to stay in the country for as long as the application takes to process (which can mean months in a detainment centre), then if the application is accepted they are no longer classed as illegal immigrants, and can legally stay here.

Nobody disputes that migrants should not be allowed to enter Europe illegally, even if they do plan on claiming asylum. The clue is in the name: 'illegal immigrants'. You seem to be suggesting that the government has a policy of letting people enter Europe illegally: I must stress once again that you should be directing your ire at the decision to let Greece and Italy into the EU when they are unable to protect their borders, the only way to stop illegal migrants entering the EU is to expel those countries from the EU. Of course, it's next to impossible to totally stop illegal migrants from arriving in Europe, as shown by the fact we still have some in the UK despite being an island in the far corner of Europe. If you can propose a solution to stop migrants from illegally coming here then I'm all ears.

Some European countries do also take in migrants legally, either from other European countries as part of a deal, or directly from camps for humanitarian reasons. The reasoning behind these policies are respectively to spread out migrants so they don't make too much of an impact in one given area, and to try to stop migrants from coming over land by taking them directly from the source (as well as taking more women and children rather than mainly young men). Do you disagree with these policies? I.e., you would prefer letting Germany take all the migrants and in your own words 'irreversibly' change the culture of Europe's most important country, rather than spreading them out across the continent in such a way that they would not make a major impact on any particular area? And you would also prefer that we reward young men for coming here illegally but block women and children from coming here legally? And don't bother saying that you would prefer if they hadn't been allowed to enter Europe in the first place, because that horse has bolted and we can't go back in time and lock it in.

Then we should be working on how to get Europeans doing those jobs, instead of getting foreigner's to do it for them. British jobs should be for British people first, and outnumbered government should not be importing an entire workforce to do it instead.

British jobs should go to the most qualified people, that's how you grow a successful economy. If British jobs aren't going to British people it's because they aren't qualified enough to compete with immigrants, in which case I suggest you direct your anger at the education ministry rather than the immigration ministry.

I find it it strange how you seem to think, that if I invade a country for x, y, or z reason, I then have to take unending stream of migrants from throughout the third world.

What I find strange is how you think railing against immigration policy is in any way helpful, when it's border control and foreign policy which are the problems. If you displace millions of people on the edge of Europe and destabilise countries such as Libya which were the only thing stopping migrants from coming here, then they will come here. It's that simple. It's not that there's a moral obligation to take people from Nigeria and Eritrea which don't have active wars, it's that that is the result of destroying the only functioning government which stands between Eritrea and the EU. I totally agree with you that we need to defend Europe's borders, my issue is that you aren't even trying to be realistic about how that can actually happen in the real world. You seem to inhabit some kind of parallel reality, whereby simply saying 'WE DON LAIK DA MIGRANTS, WE DUN WANT DA MIGRANTS' is a workable government policy that when it comes out of the mouth of Angela Merkel or Theresa May will magically stop the flow. Europe is actively trying to stem the flow of migrants, what would you like to be done differently? Name one policy that would actually help the situation. Deporting asylum seekers is not a solution because it's illegal.

We're not obliged to let an unprecedented influx of migrants just walk all over us because no the UN tells us to.

We are obliged to process their asylum applications and accept the ones who have their applications granted because we voluntarily signed up to the UN guidelines and made them legally binding on ourselves. No EU country can pull out, it has to come from Brussels.

[LinusLinothorax]

They're 'protecting' their country from economic growth, increase in labour force and hard-working people who want to make a living for themselves.

They are protecting their countries from this, this and this.

[sumskilz]

The legal meaning of 'refugee' is someone who has been granted asylum status.

My post literally contained a quote of the definition from Article 1 of the 1951 UN Convention, so far as it is the section that follows "For the purpose of the present Convention, the term refugee shall apply to any person who...". Now it's a valid (if needlessly pedantic) point that the term refugee is often being used loosely for asylum seekers, though that usage is consistent with the word's meaning in common parlance, if one believes them deserving of being granted refugee status. My post was in response to you referencing "UN-sanctioned legal duties", yet you expounded with this:

There is a legal obligation in EU countries to process claims of asylum seekers as and when they are made. Once someone has been officially designated as a refugee they are legal residents of a country and have the right to remain (for a limited time, subject to renewal). So there is no leeway there, it's not government policy but a legal obligation which you can disagree with all you like, but nothing will be done about it unless the asylum law is revoked. And since it's an integral part of EU law, there's no way for an EU country to unilaterally revoke the legal framework for asylum without putting themself at risk of major sanctions if not explusion. Soon that won't be a problem for the UK of course but this thread is not about the UK.

Your claims here are accurate as far as I know, but with one exception, none of that is obligated by international law broadly speaking. Obviously you know, you are now speaking of EU law. In other words, it's an expansion of obligations some European countries have chosen to make. Plus, de facto, it is government policy, as it is clear that some EU member governments simply choose not to cooperate.

[NosPortatArma]

They're 'protecting' their country from economic growth, increase in labour force and hard-working people who want to make a living for themselves. I think the people of Eastern Europe can do without that kind of 'protection'.

are you implying refugees entail economic growth? because they certainly do not. They're generally unskilled and have lower levels of education. Their rate of unemployment is higher than natives and even when they do work they are less productive and contribute less in taxes, while being a burden for the welfare system. We should be honest and clear about this: There is no economic argument in favour of refugee migration. Atleast not if you at the same time want to have a welfare system. You simply cannot bring in lots of less-productive people, because the expenses will increase much, much faster than the incomes will. It's thus a net drain. To take in refugees is an act of charity, which is to the detriment, not benefit, of the native population.

What western europe would benefit from is skilled workers. Unskilled workers are just a drain. As for eastern europe, they certainly don't need anymore unskilled workers... they're already exporting unskilled labour to western europe. So yeah, they're very wise in not taking in refugees. Eastern europe is poor enough as it is already, they don't need yet another burden.

It's our legal responsibility to process asylum applications of those who make them. We don't know whether migrants do or don't have grounds for asylum until their situation has been investigated, it has to be done on a case by case basis. There are some Syrians who are not eligible for asylum and some Bosnians, Pakistanis and Moroccans who are, there's no way to predict who is and who isn't until you've made enquiries into their situation.

current laws are old and were not written for situations like the ones we face today. As you say, it's simply impossible to process all applications in some cases, yet it's also unreasonable to just give general amnesty like germany did. Likewise, if these laws demand that we accept hundreds of thousands of refugees, that's also unreasonable. I think it's well overdue that the international laws on refugees are updated.

You seem to be suggesting that the government has a policy of letting people enter Europe illegally:

yes, they pretty much do, since they didn't even take obvious precautions to attempt to control the flow of migrants. it's obvious some governments didn't have any interest in actually enforcing the laws, but rather they bent over backwards to twist the laws so as to get as many immigrants into the country as possible. I know in Sweden, adults could claim to be a minor and get preferential treatment, because the immigration agency had orders to just hurry up the processes. There's stories of immigrants intentionally throwing away their ID cards and lying.. doesn't matter, because agency didn't care to actually apply the already generous swedish laws, just wanted to get as many immigrants in as possible.

stop illegal migrants from arriving in Europe, as shown by the fact we still have some in the UK despite being an island in the far corner of Europe.

I never understood how it can be "impossible" to stop migrants. Tell me, how does Turkey stop migrants? how does (or did) libya stop them? Obviously it can be done, with enough fences, wire, guards and patrols. The fences hungary put up works just fine don't they? See the problem isn't that we can't stop them, it's that we're not prepared to do what's neeeded. Europe wants to have it's cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they realise that immigrants are a drain, so they don't want them. On the other hand, europe is self-righteous and wants everyone to see how pure and holy they are, by being generous to immigrants. "Europe would never put up fences!"... Of course, it's perfectly okay to pay other countries to do it for you... What europe wants is to offer generous aid to any refugee reaching their shores, and at the same time pay other countries to make sure no refugees reach europe. I think this is ridiculous, Europe should get down from their high horse and make the decision: Either we have generous immigration, which means we take in hordes at huge cost, or we are honest and admit we don't actually want that, and then we built our own fences and do our own dirty work.

And don't bother saying that you would prefer if they hadn't been allowed to enter Europe in the first place, because that horse has bolted and we can't go back in time and lock it in.

Why not? Why is repatriation automatically of the table? it's the obvious solution. Radical leftists brought in hundreds of thousands of immigrants in an attempt to force their multicultural dream upon europe. To repatriate some of them isn't exactly radical. start with the illegal immigrants which can just be outright deported, then deport criminals, then tell the unemployed that they no longer have right to benefits. Make deals with third world coutnries to accept deportees. Pay people to leave... it can easily be done, all that's needed is for the people to want it. This is yet another thing which I don't understand why its "impossible", just like building a fence is somehow "impossible".

Europe is actively trying to stem the flow of migrants, what would you like to be done differently? Name one policy that would actually help the situation.

Copy Hungary. Obviously something can be done. Europe isn't really trying to stop immigration.. if they did, they would do like hungary.

Deporting asylum seekers is not a solution because it's illegal.

then change the law.

[Copperknickers II]

are you implying refugees entail economic growth? because they certainly do not. They're generally unskilled and have lower levels of education. Their rate of unemployment is higher than natives and even when they do work they are less productive and contribute less in taxes, while being a burden for the welfare system. We should be honest and clear about this: There is no economic argument in favour of refugee migration.

That kind of depends which refugees you're talking about. It's certainly not true of Ugandan Asians in the UK, for example, they were extremely successful. Many Syrians I've met come from quite priveleged backgrounds, as they were the ones who could afford to pay the people smugglers. That might be less true of Eritreans and Afghans of course. Anyway you are talking about first generation migrants, future generations might be more successful since they will speak the language and will often have been brought up with a culture that focuses on education and achievement unlike many young British people, hence why non-white pupils tend to exceed working class white pupils in school. Also we have a crippling aging population problem and we desperately need low skilled workers as well as high, for professions such as social work.

Atleast not if you at the same time want to have a welfare system. You simply cannot bring in lots of less-productive people, because the expenses will increase much, much faster than the incomes will. It's thus a net drain. To take in refugees is an act of charity, which is to the detriment, not benefit, of the native population.

I'll concede that point gladly. If there were no other reason to take in refugees, I would still say the moral obligation to take them in was reason enough. And I have also agreed, as does everyone, that we can't take everyone: the primary problem of the migrant crisis is border control, which prevents us from having control over how many and what type of people we let in. I've met many refugees and most are perfectly nice people, but it's true that most are young men. A lot are married and have the right to bring over their wives and family once they have refugee status, but that doesn't go far enough to solving the problem that the most vulnerable people, those most in need of asylum, are often unable to make it here in the way that able-bodied young men can. This is a problem which has been greatly mitigated however by efforts to take control of the borders and to take migrants directly from camps in the Middle East.

Current laws are old and were not written for situations like the ones we face today. As you say, it's simply impossible to process all applications in some cases, yet it's also unreasonable to just give general amnesty like germany did. Likewise, if these laws demand that we accept hundreds of thousands of refugees, that's also unreasonable. I think it's well overdue that the international laws on refugees are updated.

Maybe so. The current laws were designed in the aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust. But even if you change the law you won't solve the problem of border control. Often it's not just our laws that are the problem: we can't deport people very easily to a country that doesn't want to take migrants back. Also there's the principle of non-refoulement to consider: even if you weren't legally bound by it, do you really think it's acceptable to deport people into an active warzone? The alternative is deporting them to a country such as Turkey of which they are not nationals, in which case see the first point - Turkey has no obligation to accept deported Syrians and no amount of changing our laws is going to convince them to accept such people. They will accept them but only after negotiations and concessions on our part.

Not to mention that many migrants are de facto stateless, since they've either lost, destroyed or never received papers proving their citizenship. In which case no country is going to accept them back. This is a big problem in the case of many migrants, as borders bear little resemblance to actual ethnicities and people freely move between countries due to wars, changing borders and so on. I met migrants who swore they were from Palestine despite never having been there and not having ID papers from Palestine, Israel or their place of birth (Lebanon). I met people who were born in the southern region of Sudan, were internally displaced and moved to the north region of Sudan, and then watched as southern Sudan became the independent country of South Sudan. They were classed as South Sudanese in north Sudan and north Sudanese in South Sudan. Then you have ethnic Tigrinya Eritreans born in refugee camps in Sudan, and Bedouins who used to wander freely between Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq and are now citizens of none of those countries, since they are all accused of illegally migrating from one of the others. And so on. Most of the conflicts which caused these were a direct result by the way of random lines being drawn on maps by European colonialists.

[Mithradates]

There does appear to be a problem with rape laws in Hungary, Herreport say nearly half of Hungarians say rape is 'justifiable'. But how this relates to immigration, I do not know.
http://www.herreport.org/blog/2016/1...s-justifiable/

I dont really want to get into this but that refers to the Eurobarometer 449 report on Gender-based violence, a good example how mirror-translated EU documents alter the original meaning of the text.
The translation ended up altering the original question from "would you find sex without consent justifiable under the following circumstances?" to "would those, who find sex without consent may be justified, find the following circumstances justifiable?"
Going from an "are you a sailor?" to a "what would a sailor do in your opinion?"
The survey produced all kinds of nonsense results like 23% of hungarian women would find it justifiable if someone would rape them while they are drunk and such.

[Aexodus]

They're 'protecting' their country from economic growth, increase in labour force and hard-working people who want to make a living for themselves. I think the people of Eastern Europe can do without that kind of 'protection'.

I'm not disputing the growth part, that's what immigration always does. I'm disputing who sees the benefits of an intake of unskilled, relatively uneducated labour.

And as lithorax said, they are protecting them against terror attacks, and people from a region with high rates of rape and assault, as well as protecting for example, Polish or Czech job security.

'Damn migrants, coming over here and making our women feel unsafe. That's OUR job.' It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, how unironically hypocritical the Far Right are.

I didn't imply it wasn't 'our job', I was just pointing out that rape per capita is 353% more prevalent than in Hungary. Therefore, if you want to protect women's rights, importing people from deeply conservative Muslim countries is not the answer. Look what happened in parts of Paris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNCVQGFrMU

It's our legal responsibility to process asylum applications of those who make them. We don't know whether migrants do or don't have grounds for asylum until their situation has been investigated, it has to be done on a case by case basis. There are some Syrians who are not eligible for asylum and some Bosnians, Pakistanis and Moroccans who are, there's no way to predict who is and who isn't until you've made enquiries into their situation. It is also our legal right to deport migrants whose applications fail, or who do not make asylum applications. And that is exactly what happens where possible, outside of Germany which had a migration amnesty due to the sheer impossibility of processing a million applications and hundreds of thousands of deportation orders. Unfortunately it's easier said than done to deport people, if their home country refuses to take them back (as often happens) or if they disappear from the authorities' radar.

Sumskilz' post made little sense. The legal meaning of 'refugee' is someone who has been granted asylum status. There is a legal obligation in EU countries to process claims of asylum seekers as and when they are made. Once someone has been officially designated as a refugee they are legal residents of a country and have the right to remain (for a limited time, subject to renewal). So there is no leeway there, it's not government policy but a legal obligation which you can disagree with all you like, but nothing will be done about it unless the asylum law is revoked. And since it's an integral part of EU law, there's no way for an EU country to unilaterally revoke the legal framework for asylum without putting themself at risk of major sanctions if not explusion. Soon that won't be a problem for the UK of course but this thread is not about the UK.

What he's saying, is that the 'definition' if you like of a refugee has been effectively expanded to anyone who makes a asylum application. Again, 55% of U.K. Population growth has been through net migration, we need to lower these unprecedentedly levels soon.

Illegal migrants are by definition NOT allowed to enter Europe, but they are allowed to remain in Europe if they make an asylum application once they have arrived here. That entitles them to stay in the country for as long as the application takes to process (which can mean months in a detainment centre), then if the application is accepted they are no longer classed as illegal immigrants, and can legally stay here.

That's what I mean, people who sneak in, say on a lorry through Calais, and then once they do make the illegal crossing for which they should be deported, we have to give them legal status. I just don't think that's right, personally. It's not fair on people who enter the UK through due process.

Nobody disputes that migrants should not be allowed to enter Europe illegally, even if they do plan on claiming asylum. The clue is in the name: 'illegal immigrants'. You seem to be suggesting that the government has a policy of letting people enter Europe illegally: I must stress once again that you should be directing your ire at the decision to let Greece and Italy into the EU when they are unable to protect their borders, the only way to stop illegal migrants entering the EU is to expel those countries from the EU. Of course, it's next to impossible to totally stop illegal migrants from arriving in Europe, as shown by the fact we still have some in the UK despite being an island in the far corner of Europe. If you can propose a solution to stop migrants from illegally coming here then I'm all ears.

Well, they did 'expand' what they considered as a refugee. There is also also a ridiculous amount of positive reinforcement by the state media impressed upon us whenever it comes to immigration.

We could build a physical barrier like Hungary, mass deportations of people who trespassed into Europe, or maybe even, take a leaf out off Bulgaria

Some European countries do also take in migrants legally, either from other European countries as part of a deal, or directly from camps for humanitarian reasons. The reasoning behind these policies are respectively to spread out migrants so they don't make too much of an impact in one given area, and to try to stop migrants from coming over land by taking them directly from the source (as well as taking more women and children rather than mainly young men). Do you disagree with these policies? I.e., you would prefer letting Germany take all the migrants and in your own words 'irreversibly' change the culture of Europe's most important country, rather than spreading them out across the continent in such a way that they would not make a major impact on any particular area? And you would also prefer that we reward young men for coming here illegally but block women and children from coming here legally? And don't bother saying that you would prefer if they hadn't been allowed to enter Europe in the first place, because that horse has bolted and we can't go back in time and lock it in.

So spread them out yeah, like in Malmo where over half the population has a migrant background. The thing is, since there is no cap on immigration, they will always be considered legal.

Id love to spread it put as thinly as possible, but people have freedom of association, migrant areas will always form.

British jobs should go to the most qualified people, that's how you grow a successful economy. If British jobs aren't going to British people it's because they aren't qualified enough to compete with immigrants, in which case I suggest you direct your anger at the education ministry rather than the immigration ministry.

But they should employ British where possible, right? I mean, is that not important too? And they aren't going to migrants because they're-more qualified, its because they will work for a lower wage.

What I find strange is how you think railing against immigration policy is in any way helpful, when it's border control and foreign policy which are the problems. If you displace millions of people on the edge of Europe and destabilise countries such as Libya which were the only thing stopping migrants from coming here, then they will come here. It's that simple. It's not that there's a moral obligation to take people from Nigeria and Eritrea which don't have active wars, it's that that is the result of destroying the only functioning government which stands between Eritrea and the EU. I totally agree with you that we need to defend Europe's borders, my issue is that you aren't even trying to be realistic about how that can actually happen in the real world. You seem to inhabit some kind of parallel reality, whereby simply saying 'WE DON LAIK DA MIGRANTS, WE DUN WANT DA MIGRANTS' is a workable government policy that when it comes out of the mouth of Angela Merkel or Theresa May will magically stop the flow. Europe is actively trying to stem the flow of migrants, what would you like to be done differently? Name one policy that would actually help the situation. Deporting asylum seekers is not a solution because it's illegal.

Correct, we do need better border control, such as something as simple as a fence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

In 2014, 283,532 migrants irregularly entered the European Union, mainly following the Central Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkan routes. 220,194 migrants crossed EU sea borders in the Central, Eastern and Western Mediterranean (a 266% increase compared to 2013).

Yeah, they 'irregularly entered...

Correct me if I'm wrong but, was it not the US that destabilised Libya? Even if not, most people in the UK didn't participate in bombing Libya. What I mean by that, is our government should of course give aid and other assistance, but greeting these people in is not a solution. Should we house all of Libya? Is it not unfair some get to live in European countries while the rest are left behind? Or should it be the state that assists them in their home country, not making its own citizens live amongst half of Libya. We can help them all if they stay in Libya, but would have to concentrate more resources on housing a relatively small number of them, at no actual gain to the country of Libya. We are obliged to give financial and military aid, yes, but not to take in vast swathes of their population.

I do wish Angela Merkel wouldn't announce that Germany would give its money to migrants, when Germany is in the same common travel area as countries that might not want more migrants.

We are obliged to process their asylum applications and accept the ones who have their applications granted because we voluntarily signed up to the UN guidelines and made them legally binding on ourselves. No EU country can pull out, it has to come from Brussels.

No EU country can pull out eh? Why do you think people voted Brexit, or more recently for euro sceptic parties in Italy. The people didnt sign those agreements, and many disagree with them. With respect, such as myself.

[Aexodus]

current laws are old and were not written for situations like the ones we face today. As you say, it's simply impossible to process all applications in some cases, yet it's also unreasonable to just give general amnesty like germany did. Likewise, if these laws demand that we accept hundreds of thousands of refugees, that's also unreasonable. I think it's well overdue that the international laws on refugees are updated.

I echo this, the current situation is completely unprecedented, the old laws aren't fit for purpose, and that includes asylum laws.

Why not? Why is repatriation automatically of the table? it's the obvious solution. Radical leftists brought in hundreds of thousands of immigrants in an attempt to force their multicultural dream upon europe. To repatriate some of them isn't exactly radical. start with the illegal immigrants which can just be outright deported, then deport criminals, then tell the unemployed that they no longer have right to benefits. Make deals with third world coutnries to accept deportees. Pay people to leave... it can easily be done, all that's needed is for the people to want it. This is yet another thing which I don't understand why its "impossible", just like building a fence is somehow "impossible".

Exactly. You know we have lost our sovereignty when a super-governmental body can overrule us, against our own country's interest. You know it's bad, when we have to resort to 'moral' arguments, when the economic one has been lost. Who decides we can't deport people who are categorically foreigners who illegally entered? Who said we can't protect our own land?

Imagine for a moment, if someone told you that you shouldn't build a fence around your own property when you knew people were coming to demand a piece of it, all in the name of human rights. That's how insane this is. Open borders, the very concept is a farce.

We cant help these countries by bringing in huge swathes of their populations, end of. At the end of the day, it's a lose/lose for both countries, a drain of capital that goes into the hands of smugglers from the emigrant country, and a drain on the receiving country. It's Germans paying for the millions of migrants they have to shelter.

They aren't going to the poor countries, we have to be real here, they're ultimately following the money. It's Germany, Britain, Sweden that are the main targets. That's completely understandable, but I have yet to hear a proper argument for why anyone from another continent is entitled to European taxes.

[mishkin]

Epic fails for the integration/social policies in Sweden and Germany (and many other european countries probably) then. (Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

[nhytgbvfeco2]

(Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

Not how ethnicity works. The Welsh were controlled by English for centuries, they're still not English.

[Copperknickers II]

Not how ethnicity works. The Welsh were controlled by English for centuries, they're still not English.

That's total lol, the Welsh are the people who live within the borders of Wales. Many Welsh people are of English origin, as southern Wales was settled extensively by English migrants in the Medieval period, but they view themselves and are viewed as Welsh now. Anyway Wales is not a sovereign state with an official nationality: you can have different ethnicity and nationality. Germans of Turkish descent are German by nationality and Turkish by ethnicity, just as Jews in Germany are German by nationality and Yiddish by ethnicity, and Irish Americans are American by nationality and Irish by ethnicity.