Germany demands quota system for refugees

[Thanas]

Guardian

Germany presses for quota system for EU migrant distribution

Germany fielded about a third of the EU’s 626,000 asylum claims last year – far more than any other European country by some distance

Germany has thrown its weight behind long-stalled efforts to revamp Europe’s dealings with refugees, demanding a quota system that would distribute migrants coming to Europe more equitably among the 28 countries of the European Union.

The hugely divisive policy shift has been spurred by the emergency in the Mediterranean and the longer-term likelihood of hundreds of thousands of migrants washing up on Europe’s southern shores annually. Berlin is pushing for a more equal system of bearing the refugee burden.

National interest, as well as greater fairness, is driving Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy. Last year, Germany fielded about one-third of the 626,000 claims for asylum in the EU, according to European commission figures. Proportionate to population, this was less than Sweden, but in numbers far more than anywhere else in Europe.

Immigration policy and migrants’ admissions are entirely in the hands of national governments, with minimal powers enjoyed by Brussels. But Merkel won strong support on Wednesday from Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, which is to table new immigration proposals in a fortnight. Juncker signalled that the new plans could include a distribution key for spreading successful asylum applicants around Europe.

But Donald Tusk, the president of the European council who organises and chairs summits of EU national leaders, acknowledged that the debate on refugee-sharing would be “difficult and sensitive”.

Tusk chaired an emergency summit in Brussels last week in response to the drowning of 800 migrants in the Mediterranean and amid a clamour for Europe to be doing more to prevent the tragedies.

While the leaders came up with money and assets to improve search-and-rescue missions in the Mediterranean, participants in the summit said the arguments about how to accommodate the hundreds of thousands arriving in Europe were much more difficult.

Germany and Sweden are dealing with almost half – 45% – of all asylum claims in the EU, Merkel complained to the summit, and sought to make a small pilot scheme for sharing a few thousand immigrants binding on the 28 EU countries. She failed. The scheme is to be conducted on a voluntary basis.

Merkel’s policy is supported by those countries on the frontline of the Mediterranean’s disasters – Italy, Greece, and Malta – and by Sweden and Austria: in short, by those countries taking in most refugees in Europe.

But Berlin is strongly opposed by Britain. Last week, David Cameron pledged the Royal Navy’s flagship to the Mediterranean search-and-rescue effort but also said that migrants picked up by the British at sea would not be welcome in the UK.

Denmark, home to the EU’s most rigorous immigration regime, supports Britain, as do the countries of eastern Europe that take in minimal numbers.

The contrasts in asylum figures are striking. While Germany fielded more than 200,000 claims last year, the neighbouring Czech Republic had around 1,000. While Sweden considered more than 80,000 asylum applications, next-door Finland dealt with 3,600. Italy grappled with more than 64,000 seeking asylum while on the other side of the Adriatic, Croatia had 450 asylum-seekers.

In a European parliament debate on immigration on Wednesday, Juncker was unusually critical of last week’s summit. He described its response as inadequate. “I will work to set up a quota system,” he said. “This has to be done. It cannot wait.”

Europe, he added, had to leave its doors slightly ajar for the migrants arriving from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. If the doors were closed, the immigrants would enter through Europe’s windows.

The most painful issues being fought over by EU leaders concern the relocation and resettlement of refugees. Separately from the hundreds of thousands arriving in the EU dealt with by national authorities, the commission in Brussels asked last week’s summit to bless an experiment in “burden-sharing” by agreeing to accept 5,000 immigrants between them. The 5,000 would be people fleeing war zones who had not made the perilous Mediterranean crossing and whom international refugee agencies had deemed to require protection.

Some national leaders at the summit wanted the figure raised to 10,000, while Merkel and Juncker pressed for the scheme to be obligatory. In the end, no figure was mentioned and the pilot scheme was left voluntary.

More contentious still was the debate over relocation, or moving refugees from one EU country to another. Germany and Italy support a redistribution key, but Berlin is furious that the Italian government, swamped by arrivals in the south, has been refusing to register and fingerprint migrants, meaning that they can travel on within the EU’s passport-free Schengen area to other countries, often Germany.

Merkel wants immigrants to be shared based on an EU country’s size and its relative wealth, as well as possibly factoring in unemployment rates and the size of ethnic minority communities.

German MEPs from Merkel’s Christian Democratic party lined up in the European parliament on Wednesday to call for a new quotas system while the leadership of the European People’s Party, grouping christian democrats from across the EU, agreed a policy paper last week backing the Merkel position.

Senior sources in Brussels said the summit represented a setback for Merkel’s policy, but also that events in the Mediterranean had shifted the terms of the argument in her favour.

Some national leaders wanted the reference to “relocation” dropped from the summit statement altogether. But the meeting agreed to “consider options for organising emergency relocation between all member states on a voluntary basis” as well as calling for “a more systemic and geographically comprehensive approach to migration”.

IMO this needs to happen, and happen quickly.

[K. A. Pital]

By intervening in the Middle East unilaterally, the developed nations have designed chaos and caused the crisis to spread. Now it is only fair they reap what they sow. After all, I doubt it was Finland or Bulgaia bombing Libya and sponsoring islamists from Libya to Syria, or selling weapons to the House of Saud.

[Thanas]

The above is not worthy of discussion as it provides nothing besides "HAHAHAHAHA SEE THEM SUFFER".

[Tribble]

Immigration policy and migrants’ admissions are entirely in the hands of national governments, with minimal powers enjoyed by Brussels. But Merkel won strong support on Wednesday from Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, which is to table new immigration proposals in a fortnight. Juncker signalled that the new plans could include a distribution key for spreading successful asylum applicants around Europe.

What will happen to countries which will vote against the proposals, as the UK almost certainly will? Will they be obligated to follow the majority, or is unanimous consent required? Could certain governments join in, while others opt out? If national governments have the final say on immigration policy and migrant's admissions, I don't see how these immigration proposals are supposed to work. Wouldn't giving additional powers to Brussels require a new treaty? I don't see how Brussels can force a national government to accept a quota system if the power to establish a quota system rests with the national government. One could argue that any attempt by Brussels to do so would be ultra vires.

[Thanas]

What will happen to countries which against the proposals, as the UK almost certainly will? Will they be obligated to follow the majority, or is unanimous consent required?

Nothing will happen, except that they just pissed off the vast majority of member states.

I don't see how Brussels can force a national government to accept a quota system if the power to establish a quota system rests with the national government.

They can't. What will happen is that more people will die and that those deaths will be laid on the door of those nations refusing to take on refugees.

[Tribble]

What will happen to countries which against the proposals, as the UK almost certainly will? Will they be obligated to follow the majority, or is unanimous consent required?

Nothing will happen, except that they just pissed off the vast majority of member states.

I don't see how Brussels can force a national government to accept a quota system if the power to establish a quota system rests with the national government.

They can't. What will happen is that more people will die and that those deaths will be laid on the door of those nations refusing to take on refugees.

Well you can almost certainly rule the UK out then. They already piss off the vast majority of member states on a day-to-day basis, and I don't think they are going to care about what the rest of the EU thinks. And I don't think they'll care all that much about refugees dying either. After all, it's not like it's literally happening off their coast. Just sayin.

The odds aren't in favour for Denmark or Finland either.

[Vendetta]

Nothing will happen, except that they just pissed off the vast majority of member states.

I suspect the "vast majority" of member states are happy with the current situation where a few nations shoulder most of the work, because all the others are going to percieve it as an increase to them and give their local anti-immigration wingnuts grist for the tabloid mill.

[Purple]

My guess is that the most likely outcome of this is going to be small and weak EU nations that don't have much bargaining power being straddled by migrants to appease Brussels whilst the UK and other stronger nations that can afford to do the smart thing and refuse predictably refusing.

[Thanas]

It might be smart, but it is quite simply inhumane and abhorrent.

[Purple]

It might be smart, but it is quite simply inhumane and abhorrent.

Can't argue with that. Although to be fair, I newer really tried to begin with.

[Zaune]

The same way to deal with this would be to set up something at the EU-wide level so that we can spread the -honestly pretty minor- burden of resettling these people between all member states. What we'll get is a ridiculous Golden Mean compromise between that and outright sinking refugee boats and machine-gunning the passengers in the water, which I expect a UKIP candidate to be caught advocating any day now.

[cosmicalstorm]

Please tell us Thanas, how many million refugees per year should the EU accept?

[Vendetta]

Please tell us Thanas, how many million refugees per year should the EU accept?

It's not about "how many the EU should accept" but "where in the EU do they go when they get there".

At the moment that's Germany, with France and the UK distant second and third.

[FTeik]

Please tell us Thanas, how many million refugees per year should the EU accept?

The humane thing would be "as many as it can". And as food for thought, after WW2 what remained of Germany (FRG and DRG) had to take care of nearly 12 million fugatives of their compatriots, who had been forced to leave their homes in what is now Poland, Chechy and other easter-european nations. Surely you would agree, that conditions then were a lot worse than they are today.

[Thanas]

Please tell us Thanas, how many million refugees per year should the EU accept?

I would think 5% of the population of a country could easily be consisting of refugees if that country has no previous mass immigration from non-western cultures to it.

[LaCroix]

Please tell us Thanas, how many million refugees per year should the EU accept?

I would think 5% of the population of a country could easily be consisting of refugees if that country has no previous mass immigration from non-western cultures to it.

Did you read his question? He asked "per year". Or are you really advocating 5% per year?

This would mean that whoever complies with that just once wouldn't need to take any refugees the next few years, for I certainly would consider that a mass immigration.

Also, by that means, every other EU country would lean back and send everybody towards Germany, while only taking in a few percent of their own quota, for Germany would need to take in 4 million refugees per year to fulfil their quota - which the are currently only fulfilling about 5% by taking in ~200000.

But jokes aside, I am assuming that you are meaning to cap it at 5% (unassimilated - which would be hard to measure, but thats another question) immigration.

Currently, Germany is allowing about 0.25% of their population in per year. As far as I believe, it is considered as much as they can realistically take in, that's why they want other countries to take up slack.

If we assume the this as the maximum quota for the whole EU (~740 million population), they would allow about 2 million refugees into the EU borders per year, split into appropriate numbers per country. (Ignoring for now that this quota would rise every year du to growth.)
Also, it would mean that it takes ~20 years, or a full generation, to reach that quota (40 million plus change in total). Which I assume would work in respect of cultural assimilation of said immigrants.

[Thanas]

Yeah, that should be easily doable for all nations.

[cosmicalstorm]

I think what will happen is that Europe will stop the flow of immigrants. The demographic explosion taking place in Africa and ME can't be solved by immigration to Europe.
Europe could do far more good by removing artifical trade barriers, removing patent laws for medicines etc.

Sweden is currently running the "Lets open the borders to Africa and see what happens" experiment. Keep an eye on the news coming from Sweden in the coming years and you will see how well this works out.
In a few years our entire welfare system will break down, the police no longer performs trafic stops in immigrant rich areas unless they have riot-gear.
The government in Sweden is planning to build huge slum-cities using cargo-container-based homes. It will end with a social disaster, possibly sessecionst-related civil war like situations in some areas.
Give places like Alby and Rosengård a few more years and they will be run by local militias.

[Joun_Lord]

Thats a rather pessimistic view. Sweden, as far as I know, hasn't really a problem with integrating refugees. Just because they are letting in a bunch of "dirty darkies" doesn't automatically mean things will go to hell.

I should think Sweden would have measures in place to settle and integrate people coming in or they wouldn't have bothered to do so in the first place.

Now thats not to say I don't think there could be problems, the fact pretty much every country on the planet with immigrants has a problem of some refusing to integrate and bringing crime from their homelands to our lily white soil, but there is plenty of successful immigration and integration efforts too.

[cosmicalstorm]

Sweden has the worst assimilation/integration in Europe. I think we accept ten times more immigrants per capita than any other nation in Europe, in total numbers per year we are close to Germany, which is ten times larger populationwise.

I would be equally worried if we were moving 1500-2000 white christian leaning peeps from the bible belt into Sweden each passing week. Although their American cultural background would probably make them a bit more prone to learning the language.

It has little to do with racism for me. I live right on the edge of one of these areas, some periods people get shot every week over there, a couple of guys got shot with AK-47's in the head about half a mile from my kids daycare center a month ago. Kind of makes it real.
Hopefully I'm just a delusional racist, but I'm very pessimistic.

[Darth Tanner]

I would think 5% of the population of a country could easily be consisting of refugees if that country has no previous mass immigration from non-western cultures to it.

11.9% of the existing UK population was born abroad with 2/3 of that being non EU immigrants... and that's a 2011 figures so is probably low ball considering EU expansion in that time and it ignores second generation immigrants who are UK born... any idea how that compares to other European countries and would that cover the UK 5% commitment?

[Eleas]

Give places like Alby and Rosengård a few more years and they will be run by local militias.

I lived 500 meters from Rosengård until earlier this year. I had a friend there and would bike over, at night, with zero hint of threat or danger. For close to a decade.

The closest thing I can find (excluding flagrantly racist sites like Avpixlat, Exponerat, Hantisverige, Pettersons Blogg and so on) shows that the fire brigade wanted police escort, since they didn't want their firehoses cut or rocks thrown at them. Understandable and really bad, but nothing close to what you describe. In fact, the reason for why they do so has already been amply discussed, and is eminently understandable.

Would you like to revise your statement and perhaps tamp down on the hyperbole?

[mr friendly guy]

I think what will happen is that Europe will stop the flow of immigrants. The demographic explosion taking place in Africa and ME can't be solved by immigration to Europe.
Europe could do far more good by removing artifical trade barriers, removing patent laws for medicines etc.

Sweden is currently running the "Lets open the borders to Africa and see what happens" experiment. Keep an eye on the news coming from Sweden in the coming years and you will see how well this works out.
In a few years our entire welfare system will break down, the police no longer performs trafic stops in immigrant rich areas unless they have riot-gear.
The government in Sweden is planning to build huge slum-cities using cargo-container-based homes. It will end with a social disaster, possibly sessecionst-related civil war like situations in some areas.
Give places like Alby and Rosengård a few more years and they will be run by local militias.

Do you have any links to that, particularly the claim about "cargo container based homes," which is something I had heard about proposed in other countries for low socioeconomic classes, but other than that, I know very little.

[cosmicalstorm]

Run this through Google Translate for an english version. This is an actual plan that is proposed by the current political leadership since they do not have anywhere to place migrants. Of course they say that it will be "temporary high standard modular housing" or something like that, but I realize it will be a permanent solution, a standard slum in the making.
http://byggindustrin.se/artikel/nyhet/% ... 0%9D-21007

By the way, Sweden has nothing in the way of infrastructure for these new people planned or ready, we would need a large sized city built once every year, with everything that comes with that, doctors, teachers, nurses, daycare-centers, Sweden has none of that.

Sweden is expected to receive ~ 500.000 asylum seekers during the next five years.
I fully expect that this will end with a disaster situation and I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

[Thanas]

I am not going to accept your word for any of that because you are a well-known chicken who freaks out at every conspiracy theory and "ZOMG MUSLIM OVERRUNNING US" shit there is, so unless any other swedish resident here will confirm your stories I'll just discard it.

And besides, I don't see why you would argue against a quota system anyway, seeing as it would decrease the number of asylum seekers in sweden.