Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
cadence

Migration situation

Since many posters here live in Europe I was wondering what your thoughts and opinions are regarding the mass influx of migrants into western Europe.
mazda

No problem. After all I am only here as a result of the post WWII migration.
Can't see it lessening - war and famine are not going to recede any time soon.
Neither of our deadly illnesses - democracy nor capitalism - can provide a solution.
mr shifter

Re: Migration situation

cadence wrote:
Since many posters here live in Europe I was wondering what your thoughts and opinions are regarding the mass influx of migrants into western Europe.

You mean those living in the Schengen Area of Europe which of course the UK didn't join and now we see the problems with the scheme for some countries.
However we are part of this "United States of Europe" and as such we take part in the Free movement of "USE" Workers.

As I understand it, that Germany's work force is getting smaller because of the increase of pensioners or maybe because the former Turkish "Guest workers" are going home.
So with an expanding economy Germany gave the Turks full residential status that allowed them to vote, in the hope of reducing the Exodus.
It seems that Germany now has a requirement for 200,000 to 300,000 of these political immigrants to keep their economy growing and are happy to fund the costs of their training and housing.

A puzzle I can't otherwise answer is their rush to go north when Logically I would have thought, they went south to Mecca and the Oil Money.scratch
cadence

Re: Migration situation

mr shifter wrote:
cadence wrote:
Since many posters here live in Europe I was wondering what your thoughts and opinions are regarding the mass influx of migrants into western Europe.

You mean those living in the Schengen Area of Europe which of course the UK didn't join and now we see the problems with the scheme for some countries.
However we are part of this "United States of Europe" and as such we take part in the Free movement of "USE" Workers.

As I understand it, that Germany's work force is getting smaller because of the increase of pensioners or maybe because the former Turkish "Guest workers" are going home.
So with an expanding economy Germany gave the Turks full residential status that allowed them to vote, in the hope of reducing the Exodus.
It seems that Germany now has a requirement for 200,000 to 300,000 of these political immigrants to keep their economy growing and are happy to fund the costs of their training and housing.

A puzzle I can't otherwise answer is their rush to go north when Logically I would have thought, they went south to Mecca and the Oil Money.scratch


Interesting, I'd not read that anywhere, thanks for sharing.
Fontfroide

The first thing to assume about migration, immigration, legal or illegal is that you cannot stop it.  Once that is assumed by all people and all politicians of left, right and centre, then serious thought can be encouraged about what to do with those who come, taking into account who they are where they come from and what is happening in the country they find themselves in.

As a son of an immigrant (married to a native), and as in immigrant into two different countries in Europe, I actually, honestly, find most of the objections either racist, xenophobic, erroneous in factual terms, or full of economic nonsense.  So what programmes of "cultural assimilation" (we used to call them schools, for kids) can we invent for adults.  How can there be programmes to instruct immigrants how they have to behave to be considered "normal" in whatever place they want to live.  My son, who is born of German parents and lived all his life in Portugal, learned fluent Portuguese by going to school all day for a year or so.  FREE serious courses for any adult who wants to learn the language of the country would be a first step.  And there are always low paid, non union jobs for immigrants, have been for centuries.  

But the first and most serious assumption is that there is no way to stop immigration or migration.  Not just for obvious reasons like your house is blown up, or your kind of people are being slaughtered where you used to live or that your countryside is being swallowed by the climate change …. but that you want to live better and safer.  

And the biggest mistake is to try to make the people from somewhere else forget their old culture, forget their old language and try to force them to be like the native populations.  The French are pretty bad in this respect.  French people are deeply shocked when I say to them I have no desire to become French and know that it is not possible for become French no matter how hard I try.  AND I don't want to even try, I am quite happy to be the motley mix I am.  I just want to live in their country.  Other countries tend to recognise that a 60 year old immigrant, especially is they are identifiable before they open their mouth or after they do, can NEVER become "equal" to the natives.  They can be "accepted" and even "celebrated", but they can never become "the same".  

Another thing.  I don't fully grasp the subtle differences and the reasons for the differences between immigrants, expats, migrants, temporary travellers or workers, and refugees. Although I know this is deeply important to many people, and they spend loads of time making sure that THEIR distinction is important and everyone has to agree.

One thing I noticed years ago is that only white people call themselves "expats".  Who ever heard of a Algerian, Nigerian, Chinese, or  Turkish expat?  Hmmmm.
mazda

Surely other languages/nationalities have their own word or phrase for "ex pat" - although as a Latin phrase there is no reason for it being exclusively English.
I see what you mean though. There is an element of "Britain rules the waves" about it, that different standards apply.
However, on the other side of the coin, if I referred to a Nigerian living in the UK as an expat I can quite easily see somebody taking offence.
pantanifan

The "strategy" adopted by the government in Hungary (which I don't support) is aimed at making the whole refugee/migrant crisis somebody else's problem, building fences, and keeping out those who cross the border "illegally" by violent means if necessary (I'm sure many of you saw the scenes on TV).

Although most people here accept that this approach has harmed the country's international image (how could it do anything else?), it has also increased support for the Prime Minister and the governing party, in other words, the "who cares about anyone else, let's just look after ourselves" approach appears to be popular.

I would say this post (although made by a Danish guy living in Hungary) is pretty typical of what many Hungarians think (again I don't agree with it, I'm just trying to explain why the governing party is gaining support for its measures):

"To cross the outer border of Schengen you need a visa. If you are a refugee you can seek for asylum. It's not a human right to be allowed to cross the Hungarian border from Serbia. You are not denied to seek asylum by the Hungarian border. What is it that UN and some of the EU member states wants? If it's free movement across any border for every migrant/refugee, then they have to change some Schengen laws and UN Conventions. If they want free movement across borders now and in the future, why is it then, that people have to cross the sea in small crowded boats or be transported in the back of trucks, sometimes without oxygen, to move around. These people should be allowed to fly in from Istanbul and other cities to the destination they wish to go to. It's cheaper and much more safe. If they don't have to show documents on foot, I see no reason why they would have to show documents to boarder a plain. Right now, it's chaos in the EU, people walk on the highways and they don't have to register if they refuse to. Law and order doesn't apply to migrants. Is this what we want, because that's the situation right now. I don't want to live in anarchy, so I feel comfortable in Hungary."
mazda

You might not agree with his position, but how do you actually argue against his logical point (rather than ignoring his point and arguing some other point)  ?
Why don't we proactively decide where we are going to let them live, send in a constant stream of airplanes to pick them up, rather than rely on the vagaries of geography and mob rule to decide things ?
pantanifan

Hi mazda, I don't disagree at all with the part of the post about taking people by plane to their desired destination (if that's what people want and are willing to accept)...

The way the asylum seeking process has been implemented here (first part of the Danish guy's post) is that 100% of applicants were refused asylum within a maximum period of 3 hours, because "Serbia is a safe country" (and many were given a 1-year ban from the Schengen Area for having the cheek to have applied). I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I don't think 28 EU countries having 28 different policies is the answer (after all, people arriving have already passed through Greece before getting here)
Fontfroide

mazda wrote:
Surely other languages/nationalities have their own word or phrase for "ex pat" - although as a Latin phrase there is no reason for it being exclusively English.
I see what you mean though. There is an element of "Britain rules the waves" about it, that different standards apply.
However, on the other side of the coin, if I referred to a Nigerian living in the UK as an expat I can quite easily see somebody taking offence.


Just for one, the French call themselves the same thing while in a foreign land.  I am saying only white folks call themselves ex-pats (instead of immigrants), just in case I was not clear.  I am happy to be corrected and told that other people do the same thing or that they have found some brown, black or other immigrants in England or France or elsewhere calling themselves ex-pats.  My real point is that the terminology is unclear and has meaning.

I wonder if the free movement of capital is more important than the free movement of labour.  They should both be free.  Or maybe capital should be more regulated?
cadence

What about the impact on the intelligence community, they spend a great deal of money and time trying to identify potential terrorist threats, now with this mass migration there is almost no way of knowing who has crossed into Europe.  Since most of these people (real war refugees from Syria, not others looking for a handout) were temporarily living in Turkey wouldn’t it have been more logical to have a plan in place, to do this is a more efficient and documented manner?
Fontfroide

I am sure they will never solve that one.  HOw hard is it to smuggle a few people into a Europe the size of 500 million with borders everywhere and mountains forever.  They could all put up walls and mine the coast, but it would never happen.  Defence against terrorism is almost impossible, that is the main advantage of it as a tactic.

But you are certainly right to point out that there are bound to be some undercover dudes amongst all the immigrants, migrants or refugees.  How could it b otherwise?

       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffee Lounge
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum