Migration and Asylum

clivex said:
I'm not really interested in going down that route frankly but to say there is only a problem because of isil is nonsense
Click to expand...

True, to a degree.

The most recent problems are rooted in Western support for the Arab Spring, and the hopelessly-optimistic, "democracy fixes everything" world-view. It failed in Iraq, it failed in Tunisia, it failed in Libya, and it will fail in Syria if Assad is allowed to be removed.

Notional uprisings in Bahrain were crushed by the authorities there, and it took a military-coup to remove the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt - and yet the West remain closer to both countries, than most others in the Middle-East........except, of course, for the authoritarian, Wahabbist, monarchy in Saudi Arabia, which is apparently entirely exempt from any suggestion that democracy should be introduced there.

Western policy is bipolar when it comes to the Middle East, and has been for years - and all it has done has helped create the vacuum that cu*nts-in-sandals like ISIL can exploit.
 
In the medium to long term, every nation is better off for being a secular liberal democracy. Yes, with a proper rule of law and separation of state from religion it is by miles the most successful system

there are barely any exceptions to the rule (Singapore perhaps, if you mind being hanged for dropping litter) and endless failures

authoritarian regimes lead to underperformance in the economy because there is simply no check on corruption which in itself is the biggest factor in ruined economies and that's before you even get near the human rights

the feeble minded left always have a weakness for authoritarian regimes. Losers like being bullied.
 
The muslim brotherhood were removed because there was an enormous swing against them because they were abusing there power. The current situation is not perfect but they are an example of why sectarian religous parties are dangerous

wrimg to say Tunisia has failed. I'm sure that's wishful thinking on this forum though
 
A little thought experiment...

Romania and Bulgaria are both members of the EU, both have declining populations and both, by EU standards have weak economies

It's quite understandable that Middle-Eastern emigrants have not, as far as I'm aware, chosen these as destinations rather than the alluring wealthy west; but aren't they just the sort of under-populated 'poor' countries that would benefit from a healthy influx of new citizens?

I've no idea (does anyone) what the demographic make-up of the migrants are; but I'd hazard a guess they comprise a healthy mix of all: from the poor, unskilled and ill-educated through to the relatively wealthy, skilled and well-educated

A significant number would, I'd surmise, have more to offer the likes of Bulgaria and Romania than the likes of UK and Germany

Providing of course that these relatively beleaguered countries aren't expected to cope with the initial costs of settling thousands

My idea would be for the EU to help - or mainly - fund resettlement, safe in the knowledge (IMVHO) that over the longer term the mass emigration will be economically beneficial: to both the countries and the new citizens

What Bulgaria and Romania would make of this idea I don't know; and I don't know what correspondents on this board will make of it either

Like I said just a thought experiment: fire away if you feel like it

Edit: Population density per square mile:

Bulgaria 171
Romania 219
France 301
Germany 583
UK 662 (England 1054)
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
My idea would be for the EU to help - or mainly - fund resettlement, safe in the knowledge (IMVHO) that over the longer term the mass emigration will be economically beneficial: to both the countries and the new citizens
Click to expand...
You are suggesting that the EU monolith turn these countries into resettlement camps ???
It's about more than economics; it doesn't matter if some migrants are skilled or educated, these countries don't want them because of the culture, outlook, and (yes) religion of these migrants. These countries have made this quite clear; right or wrong, that is the will of these countries and as sovereign entities with their own identity, that stance has to be respected.
 
Warbler said:
In support of Clive's conversion to the cause of asylum seekers incidentally, I did see the other day that so far the UK has taken enough Syrian's to fill a standard London tube train.
Click to expand...
And all the rest? All the Afghans, Eritreans, Somali's etc etc.
How many tube trains would it take to accommodate all those?

Don't do down your own country in this regard, mate. Britain has done more than its fair share over the past 50 years in granting asylum to the needful. Isn't it around 12% or something of the present population has been born outside the country?
 
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/09/24/expert-voices-syrian-refugees-europe-eu-commission/

If you use the tabs halfway down the page you can get a snapshot of some of the data

The uprising started in March 2011, with protests starting to turn more violent in July. The first figures we have are for the first quarter of 2012, when just 2595 Syrians claimed asylum in Europe, approximately one year into the conflict. It seems quite reasonable to me at least (and I suspect any other person) to assume that in 2010 and further back, the number of Syrians seeking asylum was below this figure of 2595. It's palpable nonesense to suggest that Assad is responsible for the exodus that has since followed. Any really simple CSE student could see that the correlation factor by way of determinant coefficient in this relationship is the emergence of ISIL. It seems likely to me that the number of Syrians seeking asylum in Europe prior to 2010 would be less than 500
 
Last edited:
Whether he is or isn't directly responsible for "the exodus that has since followed" doesn't actually matter Warbler.

You cannot separate or divorce him from the problem as a whole, surely?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
also it's total nonsense to state that if Assad had quickly been removed Isil would be running the whole country. You have absolutely no idea whether that is true or not and frankly I do not believe it one bit. They exploited a vacuum. If there had been another quickly appointed administration with forces backing then Syrias fall would have been no more likely than jordans now
Click to expand...

I just don't know how much more evidence you need.

I'm far from sure you believe it yourself hence your big use of the word "if" on two absolutely essential points, neither of which you could likely deliver. I'll deal with the military though rather than trying to find a credible alternative leadership

The officer corps of the Syrain military are hand picked loyalists to the Assad dynatsy and could be relied on to fight.

OK, what do you think happens to this group (the military) when they suddenly have some Professor from Damascus university imposed on them as their new leader? or as is more likely, an ex-emigre.

Remember they lose a fair amount of their status and their 'buy in' when Assad is toppled. Are they still willing to go out and fight and risk death for this new regime which has disenfranchised them by it's very existance and imposition? I know you prefer to simply blunder into things without assessing the evidence, and then try and spin your way out of a hole, but in your silly world of unicorns and pixies, do you expect the degraded officer corps of the army to unswervingly answer this new administration? Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Iraq and Libya?.

Those who stay loyal to the concept of government, will be a reduced body of men. Others will melt away back into society, whereas others will take up arms in support of the various militia groups that such a vacuum would form (the Saddamists are an example of this happening elsewhere of course if you want evidence). Which ever way you look at it, the Syrian state military (already struggling) would be a degraded fighting force

Who exactly do you think is carrying the fight to ISIL at the moment Clive? If the Syrian military stopped fighting tomorrow what do you honestly think would happen? Or are you seriosuly suggesting that ISIL would then disband and liberal democracy would breakout and everyone lives happily ever after. This is pink castles in the sky and mermaid territory. ISIL would march straight on Damascus, pronounce an expansion of the caliphate and enslave and kill anyone of whom they disapproved

I'm afraid what you're guilty of Clive is picking out a 100% idealist end game, and then trying to back fit and agreeable narrative over the top of it to suit your own personal opinion. You're wantonly ignoring for reasons of dogma all the unfortunate pragmatic objections that you encounter on the way, because you have an unshakable belief in there only being one way, and no compromise (even imperfect ones).
 
Last edited:
What i am curious to learn is why has there been a recent influx of Syrians in particular. Remember our media can be economical with the truth. Mass movements on this scale usually predicate a military and societal collapse. I've seen a few reports that ISIL have been gaining ground in Syria in the last 6 weeks, is this more extensive than is being reported? Are people starting to flee in greater numbers now because Syria is on the verge of falling to ISIL? Well be careful what you wish for Clive - removing Assad and replacing him with ISIL isn't a good idea imho
Click to expand...

Some of the Syrian refugees coming into Europe have already spent up to three years in holding camps in Lebanon or Turkey. But these places were only intended to be temporary halts and people have decided to move on from them because they want to settle down and get their children educated.
 
marble said:
You cannot separate or divorce him from the problem as a whole, surely?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you frame the "problem"

Personally I view that by far and a way the biggest threat is posed by ISIL, and the problem is the expansion of aggressive conservative Islam that has no accommodation or truct with anything other than their own fascist believes. The problem posed by Assad is little more than a footnote in context. Islamic State is spawning off shoots all over the globe, how many Assadists are there by contrast?

The obsession with Assad is very much something consigned to the political classes of the west, wringing their hands and pontificating on the perfect ideal world order. It's interesting that some of the western voices that have spoken in support of an accommodation with Assad, and who view him not as the problem, but even as being part of the solution, are our own military planners. They look at this whole thing through a totally different perspective, and removing the only command and control, and substantial body of fighting men who are prepared to fight ISIL in Syria is frankly looney tune stuff. Without the Syrian army, it would be left to Hezbollah and irregular tribal Shi'ite militia
 
I accept there's a strong chance you're right Warbler.

I've just been talking to a friend on facebook who is sure ISIS are a creation of the West and more specifically Isreal, and that Syria is the one country where the Rothschild central bank don't have a foothold. Maybe he is right, I dunno.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I just don't know how much more evidence you need.

I'm far from sure you believe it yourself hence your big use of the word "if" on two absolutely essential points, neither of which you could likely deliver. I'll deal with the militart though rather than trying to find a credible alternative leadership

The officer corps of the Syrain military are hand picked loyalists to the Assad dynatsy and could be relied on to fight.

OK, what do you think happens to this group (the military) when they suddenly have some Professor from Damascus university imposed on them as their new leader? or as is more likely, an ex-emigre.

Remember they lose a fair amount of their status and their 'buy in' when Assad is toppled. Are they still willing to go out and fight and risk death for this new regime which has disenfranchised them by it's very existance and imposition? I know you prefer to simply blunder into things without assessing the evidence, and then try and spin your way out of a hole, but in your silly world of unicorns and pixies, do you expect the degraded officer corps of the army to unswervingly answer this new administration? Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Iraq and Libya?.

Those who stay loyal to the concept of government, will be a reduced body of men. Others will melt away back into society, whereas others will take up arms in support of the various militia groups that such a vacuum would form (the Saddamists are an example of this happening elsewhere of course if you want evidence). Which ever way you look at it, the Syrian state military (already struggling) would be a degraded fighting force

Who exactly do you think is carrying the fight to ISIL at the moment Clive? If the Syrian military stopped fighting tomorrow what do you honestly think would happen? Or are you seriosuly suggesting that ISIL would then disband and liberal democracy would breakout and everyone lives happily ever after. This is pink castles in the sky and mermaid territory. ISIL would march straight on Damascus, pronounce an expansion of the caliphate and enslave and kill anyone of whom they disapproved

I'm afraid what you're guilty of Clive is picking out a 100% idealist end game, and then trying to back fit and agreeable narrative over the top of it to suit your own personal opinion. You're wantonly ignoring for reasons of dogma all the unfortunate pragmatic objections that you encounter on the way, because you have an unshakable belief in there only being one way, and no compromise (even imperfect ones).
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea at all what the military's attitude would have been if Assad had fallen and another regime had taken its olace

frankly you just simply make assumptions which are based on no evidence whatsoever to back up your admiration for these dictators.

marble is right. Of course Assad is a big part of the problem. The state would never had been unstable if the regime was governing properly and there was genuine representation. Grey rightly points out that the refugee crisis dates back more before isis made genuine ground

and your patronising tone grates yet again. Yet again you attribute quotes which are total bullshit. I said secular democracy is a medium to long term ideal solution. What the fck is wrong with that? There are so called pragmatic solutions for now because democracy doesn't easily come about over night

and so what if I believe it is more or less the only way? Th evidence is there? Want a list of failed nations? The uprisings against gadafi and Assad were perfect examples of the pressure cooker caused by authoritinarian regimes.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
I accept there's a strong chance you're right Warbler.

I've just been talking to a friend on facebook who is sure ISIS are a creation of the West and more specifically Isreal, and that Syria is the one country where the Rothschild central bank don't have a foothold. Maybe he is right, I dunno.
Click to expand...

whats the name of your friend? hitler? Corbyn?

To put it bluntly I think you ought to get out more and find some real friends

although you "friend" is clearly a bigot (doesn't matter whether far left or right... Both the same) try telling the creep taht Syria is a country of 6m with a not exactly a gdp that is going to trouble the world economy. 111th in the world

and if He can't work out what that means to his theory well he's a thick cnt
 
clivex said:
You have absolutely no idea at all what the military's attitude would have been if Assad had fallen and another regime had taken its olace

frankly you just simply make assumptions which are based on no evidence whatsoever to back up your admiration for these dictators.
Click to expand...


[video]http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/09/oh-no.gif[/video]
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Grey rightly points out that the refugee crisis dates back more before isis made genuine ground
Click to expand...

No he doesn't

He stated "spent up to three years in holding camps" . Knowing how much you enjoy being patronised, allow me to talk you through the maths

Today is September 2016, if you take the number 3 away from 2016 then you get 2013 (follow it so far?) so that equals September 2013, yes? (try and remember this date)

The uprising started in March 2011 and became seriosuly violent in July of the same year. That's a little over 5 years ago. The refugees you're trying to ascribe to Grey's post weren't in the holding camps in this period, (albeit there were some we know - the early movers etc). So can we put a figure on the scale of the displaced?

The first figures UNHCR have for asylum applications is for the first quarter of 2012 (the conflict has turned bloody by now and ISIL are making gains just as the rag bag pro democracy groups are splintering).

The total number of global asylum cases from Syria was 9020, of which 2595 were made in Europe.

9020 - 2595 = 6425 assuming of course that all these applications were made in Lebanon and Turkey (which they weren't).

Now I'm happy to speculate that the total global figure before the Arab spring was in the region of 750 to 1000 (rule of 10% etc). Sadly no one's published these figures, which might tell a tale in it's own right. Prior to ISIL, Syria wasn't a major source of asylum seekers. This flood of refugees is almost certainly the result of a civil war and one which has evolved now to a clear fight between the Syrian state and their allied militias, against ISIL and their global jihadists. To try and pretend otherwise and make excuses for ISIL by transferring the blame to Assad is just wrong

What is less clear to me is how many of the displaced were squatting on the border and weren't processed for adminsitrative accounting? But I'm inclined to ask how many of these holding camps existed prior to 2010?

Go figure what the determinant coefficient is in this case. Enemy identification has been a real problem in western policy since 9/11. Even the bloody Archbishop of Cantebury is calling for military action ISIL now. Assad is a footnote. He can be dealt with later, albeit double crossing Gadaffi has made the job of bringing him in much harder now
 
Last edited:
I'm not really going to go into that but I do agree that killing off isis (somehow) is the clear priority for all sorts of reasons. It's pure evil
 
Aye, lets nail our own (alledged) creation ISIL then take a fresh look at Basir Al Assad.

Amen to that.
 
Last edited:
Well this goes to the heart of the 'problem'

Are we seeing this as a political or military issue?
If you see it as the latter, things do become a lot more clearer
The first thing we need to start doing is identifying the willing and the capable

It's notable that some military planners (who I reckon are about a decade ahead of the politicians) have already identified Assad as an ally and Russia as a potential partner. Our politicians however don't seem to be able to shake off the chains of dogma they've saddled themselves with. What surprises me is that Cold War politics in particular was riddled with examples of the west turning a blind eye to some pretty unedifying regimes (particularly in South America) who they allied with, out of convenience. They can do it if they choose to, but at the moment they're letting us all down with their paralysis and very badly flawed judgement (particularly in enemy identification and accurate scenario building)

The conditions under which ISIL have flourished is an example Marb. The west didn't 'create' them in terms of wanton design. They're the product of what's called the 'law of unintended consequence', albeit in this case I would contend that the unintended was actually quite foreseeable, and made all the more galling by the really poor reasons and unnecessary intervention in Iraq which started the process. This itself, again harks back to enemy identification
 
Last edited:
The military are also bitter they got bullied into one of the most farcical wars in 2003 that we've involved our self in for a very long time, Warb.

I'd love Russia to be an ally, and to create a better way for innocent people in the middle east.

I fear there's so much we're not being told right now, that its a bit of guessing game for most of us.

Anyway, I can't add much to this, so am going to let others crack on here with the debate.

I appreciate the time you've put in to gathering your argument together though.
 
Last edited:
After some of your recent posts, clivex, your dismissiveness of others as 'bigots' is somewhat laughable.

You hate Islam. We get it. But that fact taints your every argument, and your contributions to threads such as these, serve only to pollute the dialogue, rather than move it forward or make for an interesting discussion - principally because you roll-out your well-worn "not getting into that" approach, whenever a valid counter-point is raised.

On the plus side, the thread does appear to have teased Drone out of his Hermitage deep in the Moors, which is always a welcome development.

To answer Drone's point, Bulgaria and Romania are inherently corrupt European nations, and unlikely to give refugees/migrants any kind of leg-up. It's little wonder they choose to look further west for an ultimate destination.
 
Last edited:
Just picking up on that actually, if you click on this link (tried to post it earlier) and go a third of the way down to the 4 tabs, click on the one called "asylum map" and you'll discover that Bulgaria has taken more than France and has more than pulled it's weight.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/09/24/expert-voices-syrian-refugees-europe-eu-commission/

The reason the UK is so popular (as it's been surveryed before) isn't because of our alleged social security benefits (the Daily Mail explanation) nor is it because of our economy (the Cameron explanation). It's actually because of our language. Incidentally 'Premiership football' is also in the top five reasons. Perhaps we could close that down, and get rid of the economic migrants that infest it

I couldn't help however, marrying a few things together. The English language is going to be most important tool in helping new arrivals get an economic footing. There is an isolated country surrounded by rough seas to our west, that speaks a variant of English. It doesn't have anything like our population density issues, and so many unoccupied houses that they don't know what to do with them. They also have a fine tradition of economic migrancy to boot, so should be a most empathetic and hospitable host. Finally they've built a country and culture where religion has exerted an irrational hold over the political process, so should make for a smoother transitional and settling in period.

The concept of 'honeypots' is well known in the field of environmental management and it has served to protect many areas in the past, perhaps this is the solution?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top