European refugee crisis thread

[Broomstick]

Ok, jwl, so you personally don't interact with Greece, but you admit some of your actual neighbors do. Greece does contribute to general EU funds, which the UK derives some benefit from. So there is some connection.

On top of that, if Greece is overrun with people that WILL spill over to nations closer to you, and may well result in people making the sea crossing to your nation, either directly or via France. So, maybe the house next to yours isn't burning, it's one down the block... it's still in your interest that that fire be brought under control rather than spread down the block until it reaches your house.

[Zaune]

JWL... Are you seriously saying that we should just let tens of thousands of people die, and potentially allow Greece to be torn apart by a civil war, because there's nothing in it for us if we do something to help?

[salm]

Are you talking about the Iraq war indirectly causing daash? Well it's good to know you think we should ignore Italy, as they were in the coalition of the willing.

But just as many refugees are fleeing Assad as are fleeing daash, if not more, so greece would be facing the same immigrantion crisis regardless.

Ignoring Italy? I don´t need to point out every single over fucker in order to point out one particularly large over fucker.

[salm]

The US recently decided to take in 120,000 Syrians this year, then changed it to "10,000 for sure this year, 100,000 a year by 2017". It didn't get a lot of airplay, probably not being as dramatic as the visuals from the Hungarian border, so it was easy to miss.

There are also at least 18 US mayors urging the Feds to take in more, saying they have room in their cities for the newcomers.

Ah, good to know. I missed that in the news.

[Broomstick]

It doesn't help that there is some flux in the totals.

Part of the problem is regulations conflicting with admitting more Syrians. Basically, the administration decided we should let more in and now the immigration service and lawyers are scrambling to arrange things to make it legal. It's a bit untidy, but there's no question we WILL be taking in more people even if we're still working out the details.

[jwl]

I think you have too much confidence in the sea acting as a moat for you. You're not invulnerable, however comforting you find the thought.

No, because the same area they will try and cross also happens to be the busiest shipping lane in the world.

It doesn't matter. These folks won't be following maritime rules, they'll just set out into the shipping lanes regardless.

Look, apparently in july there were 50'000 refugees landing in greece. Now if you take the 31 days of July and assume they went in 4 people per boat, that's 400 boats per day. Guess how many boats pass through the Straits of Dover per day? The same authorities will be dealing with them.

That's how many landed, not how many set out. We don't really know how many are going down along the way.

Nor are they limited to the Straits of Dover, or the narrowest parts of the Channel.

And for these authorities, it is a matter of routine. Any crisis point and they'll be able to ramp up the response.

If you have 100,000+ people attempting the sea crossing it won't be enough to stop them, any more than a wire fence will stop a 100,000 refugees doing a zerg rush on it. Numbers count.

The comparison with the united states is a false one because the united state's coast is huge, making it harder to defend the whole length.

Which is why I was limiting the discussion mostly to the Cuba/Florida area - which is patrolled by more than one nation. We still can't stop them from coming.

Also, are these Chinese people you are talking about actually coming in large numbers, or are they just a handful of people in one boat who make the news because it's rare?

Here's an article from the LA Times from the early 1990's discussing two boats carrying hundreds of illegal Chinese being caught off the coast of San Fransciso, with it being the third attempt to land hundreds of people within three weeks.

Here is a video talking about a ship smuggling Chinese that ran aground in New York City, which is hardly on a direct route from China no matter which route you take. Here's a bit more on that particular ship. Apparently, they went China-Thailand-Kenya-Cape of Good Hope-New York City.

This particular problem surged in the 1990's for some reason (I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, just an interested observer) but yes, I'd describe them as more than "handful". These are just the boats that were caught or ran aground - they aren't the boats that either sank at sea or successfully discharged their cargo without being noted by the authorities. Keep in mind, too, these were largely those "economic refugees" everyone seems to like to demonize - they were fleeing from poverty, not fear of death. People fleeing the Middle East wars will be even more desperate and tolerant of risks.

As I said, modern transportation makes us all neighbors now. There is no place too remote from where you are that desperate people can't attempt the trip.

Why do you think 100000 people will attempt to cross the channel at once when greece only has 50000 people crossing in a month? They'll have spread out a bit by the time they get to the UK, and 1 month=/=1 hour.

If you haven't noticed, the reason I highlighted 400 boats is because that is the number that cross the striats of Dover per day. If the authorities can manage that, they can manage the same number of immigrants attempting a crossing.

Your example is from two decades ago, the world has moved on from then. Yes, we have modern transportation now, but the migrants won't be able to access that: they are stuck with dodgy dingies. Meanwhile, the channel authorities have all sorts of modern methods of locating and managing ships.

But regardless, do you have any evidence that there are any ships that weren't caught immediately? Referencing ships that were isn't terribly convincing if you want to argue that their passage is unmanageable.

Also, note that the UK doesn't just have to deal with people smugglers: they deal with actual smugglers that smuggle drugs, tobacco, etc. These smugglers do not attempt to land at the UK without permission because they know if they do they'll get caught. Instead, they ask to land at the port and hope to sneak their illegal cargo through without the authorities noticing.

[jwl]

JWL... Are you seriously saying that we should just let tens of thousands of people die, and potentially allow Greece to be torn apart by a civil war, because there's nothing in it for us if we do something to help?

No, I'm suggesting we save thousands of people's lives by taking refugees from the middle east instead of Europe. And greece isn't going to be torn apart by civil war, stop being sensationalist.

[Broomstick]

Why do you think 100000 people will attempt to cross the channel at once when greece only has 50000 people crossing in a month? They'll have spread out a bit by the time they get to the UK, and 1 month=/=1 hour.

Because three million Syrians have already become refugees in neighboring ME nations to Syria, with two millions expect to be on the move this year. If those two million find the gates locked on the southern border of Europe they will go somewhere. That's just the Syrians - there are literally millions of people interested in going north to Europe.

If you haven't noticed, the reason I highlighted 400 boats is because that is the number that cross the striats of Dover per day. If the authorities can manage that, they can manage the same number of immigrants attempting a crossing.

Great - they're geared towards 400 boats a day... but it won't be 400, it will be 800. Are they really able to deal with twice the current number? Keep in mind that the small boats won't have transponders and are less likely to show up on radar because they are so much smaller, have less metal, and so forth.

Your example is from two decades ago, the world has moved on from then. Yes, we have modern transportation now, but the migrants won't be able to access that: they are stuck with dodgy dingies. Meanwhile, the channel authorities have all sorts of modern methods of locating and managing ships.

So does the US - and it's been a continuing problem of planes so small they can literally fly under the radar smuggling people in, or locked into cargo cars on trains (sometimes dying there, too), and freaking homemade submarines smuggling drugs and people in by sea. Modern tech is making all of that accessible at smaller prices.

And no, they're not stuck with just "dodgy dinghies". Professional smugglers will get involved - hell they are already involved! - with access to more reliable transportation methods.

But regardless, do you have any evidence that there are any ships that weren't caught immediately? Referencing ships that were isn't terribly convincing if you want to argue that their passage is unmanageable.

Sure - as of 2015 illegal Chinese outnumber illegal Mexicans entering the US. They didn't fucking walk across the ocean! One of the links I provided even admits one of three ships got away in one incident. The gang leader operating the smuggling ring The Golden Venture was part of turned states' evidence and gave details on thousands of Chinese smuggled into New York City alone.

Also, note that the UK doesn't just have to deal with people smugglers: they deal with actual smugglers that smuggle drugs, tobacco, etc. These smugglers do not attempt to land at the UK without permission because they know if they do they'll get caught. Instead, they ask to land at the port and hope to sneak their illegal cargo through without the authorities noticing.

Right, every inch of the UK shoreline is heavily patrolled by your Coast Guard equivalent? If they get through somewhere other than the SE of England or major ports how would you know? And what makes you think they won't try to sneak in on airplanes, too? We certainly have an element of that going on for illegal immigration to the US, in addition to various types of contraband smuggling.

[Zaune]

To be scrupulously fair to jwl, I should point out that nearly all the British beaches that could plausibly be reached from the Mediterranean are in quite densely-populated parts of the country. The odds of making landfall without being seen by someone -even just someone walking their dog or a courting couple having an alfresco quickie- are pretty low unless the weather is really foul, which presents its own obvious problems with trying to make landfall.

[Broomstick]

How about the middle of the night? Say... 2 am? Lots of people walking dogs on the beach at that hour?

[Zaune]

Not particularly, but there's not a whole lot of nice safe stretches of beach to land a boat on that aren't in populated areas.

And I'm not looking forward to finding out what happens when a refugee boat washes up on the seafront of a British coastal town.

[jwl]

Why do you think 100000 people will attempt to cross the channel at once when greece only has 50000 people crossing in a month? They'll have spread out a bit by the time they get to the UK, and 1 month=/=1 hour.

Because three million Syrians have already become refugees in neighboring ME nations to Syria, with two millions expect to be on the move this year. If those two million find the gates locked on the southern border of Europe they will go somewhere. That's just the Syrians - there are literally millions of people interested in going north to Europe.

Yeah, sure , there might be more people moving towards Europe in the future. But you haven't told me why the rate would go that high, rather than the total number of refugees in europe. The rate is what is actually relevant to the question of dealing with it.

If you haven't noticed, the reason I highlighted 400 boats is because that is the number that cross the striats of Dover per day. If the authorities can manage that, they can manage the same number of immigrants attempting a crossing.

Great - they're geared towards 400 boats a day... but it won't be 400, it will be 800. Are they really able to deal with twice the current number? Keep in mind that the small boats won't have transponders and are less likely to show up on radar because they are so much smaller, have less metal, and so forth.

Of course they can handle twice that number, 400 is the everyday average, not the maximum, and they could easliy ramp up their resources if necessary.

Your example is from two decades ago, the world has moved on from then. Yes, we have modern transportation now, but the migrants won't be able to access that: they are stuck with dodgy dingies. Meanwhile, the channel authorities have all sorts of modern methods of locating and managing ships.

So does the US - and it's been a continuing problem of planes so small they can literally fly under the radar smuggling people in, or locked into cargo cars on trains (sometimes dying there, too), and freaking homemade submarines smuggling drugs and people in by sea. Modern tech is making all of that accessible at smaller prices.

And no, they're not stuck with just "dodgy dinghies". Professional smugglers will get involved - hell they are already involved! - with access to more reliable transportation methods.

In the pictures of these professional smugglers I've seen, their boats are barely better than the dodgy dingies the rest of them use. And if they do use people smuggler boats instead of 4-man dingies, that would reduce the number of boats to more like 40 per day.

But regardless, do you have any evidence that there are any ships that weren't caught immediately? Referencing ships that were isn't terribly convincing if you want to argue that their passage is unmanageable.

Sure - as of 2015 illegal Chinese outnumber illegal Mexicans entering the US. They didn't fucking walk across the ocean! One of the links I provided even admits one of three ships got away in one incident. The gang leader operating the smuggling ring The Golden Venture was part of turned states' evidence and gave details on thousands of Chinese smuggled into New York City alone.

Well the new york thing is looking like it is getting into some evidence, at least. But can you confirm that these Chinese are getting into the country via illegal boat landings rather than overstaying their visas?

Also, note that the UK doesn't just have to deal with people smugglers: they deal with actual smugglers that smuggle drugs, tobacco, etc. These smugglers do not attempt to land at the UK without permission because they know if they do they'll get caught. Instead, they ask to land at the port and hope to sneak their illegal cargo through without the authorities noticing.

Right, every inch of the UK shoreline is heavily patrolled by your Coast Guard equivalent? If they get through somewhere other than the SE of England or major ports how would you know? And what makes you think they won't try to sneak in on airplanes, too? We certainly have an element of that going on for illegal immigration to the US, in addition to various types of contraband smuggling.

One way would be a smuggler or the people that sells their stuff who reforms or gets caught owning up. Or a smuggler being caught only after they have unloaded and sent off half their cargo. It seems unlikely to me that none or only small amounts would be caught, because otherwise they wouldn't bother trying to sneak the stuff past legitimate ports.

As for planes, if you mean sneaking goods on planes with permission to land in the UK, I am aware this happens. It's much more difficult to smuggle people this way though, because they require things like warmth and oxygen. If you mean trying to get a plane in the UK unauthorized, try that and RAF quick response alert will turn up and ask you to do what they say or risk being shot at with missiles. Russian planes fly near British airspace decently regularly this way, just to see what happens.

But this is irrelevant to our discussion about boats, and also irrelevant to the whole situation in Calais because they could just as easily fly in from the middle east. In fact it should probably be easier, since there are less enforced regulations on things like buying and flying a plane in the middle east than in France.

[Starglider]

What is this bizarre obssession with going to the UK. Hardly anyone is going to mess about with speedboats and aircraft trying to get into a country with equivalent standard of living to the rest of northern Europe, when it is more hassle to reach and legally more dicey than Germany. The migrants hanging about at Calais are a tiny fraction of the total European migrant population who are mostly trying to get into the UK because of extended family connections or just arbitrary personal obsession. The number of people trying to get into the UK specifically will scale roughly proportionally with the total number of migrants coming into Europe, but it isn't going to change disproportionately unless there is a major change in standard of living, legal situation or cultural attitude to migrants in either the UK or one or more other major countries in northern Europe.

The UK is not in a good position to take large numbers of refugees due largely to the high amount of legal migration from the rest of Europe, which has exhausted the housing stock and driven both market rents and the amount the government has to pay to house each migrant (or UK citizen in receipt of housing benefit) to a very high (and still rising) level. Of course this is in combination with awful policy from a succession of Labour and Conservative governments that has suppressed nearly all forms of house building, which would otherwise have raised supply to meet the demand.

Current UK policy is essentially correct in taking a reasonable number of additional asylum seekers (in addition to the steady flow prior to the current crisis), focusing on the most vulnerable families who did not have the resources to reach other European countries on their own, while routing aid spending to camps close to the originating countries, where the cost efficiency of delivering assistance is much higher. Regardless of whether UK citizens welcome or reject the idea of having additional migrants packed into their communities, it is undeniably true that supporting a Syrian family at Oncupinar costs approx $100/month, wheras doing it in England costs at least $2000/month. At a time when many camps are experiencing substantial shortages of essential supplies, it is in fact grossly irresponsible to spend the funds renting flats in Birmingham for a handful of asylum seekers rather than supplying food, medicine and shelter for 20 times as many. I don't see why the UK should pay any attention to ideas coming out of Brussels on this subject, if they are delivered in the typical Thanasian contemtuous sneer.

[cosmicalstorm]

Keep your eyes on Sweden now. The winter will be awful.
Sweden is pulling about 30.000/month now. We'd need four high rise apartment-buildings per day to cope but we are not anywhere close and there are no plans to start construction. Just panic measures layered like an onion.
Not to mention all the other forns of necessary infrastructure (doctors, schools, police, adminstrative manpower).
Sweden is going to nosedive into the ground now.

[cosmicalstorm]

Migrationsverket: ~1000-1300 arrivals per day (1200 per day x 365 days = 438.000)
http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Migra ... kande.html

Two newsstories in Swedish, can be google translated to get an idea:

Third largest city is 300 beds short now.
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/malmo/malmo-s ... ll-helgen/

Property rights disappears, police and different part of the government blame each other, your house can literally be occupied by Roma citizens and you are obliged to personally ID them before the police will help you.
http://www.svd.se/kakstader-ar-inte-los ... /om/debatt

Former minister warns that Sweden is facing anarchy within 12 months
https://www.facebook.com/SOLittorin/pos ... 7639824411
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/litto ... ktinglaget

[Broomstick]

What is this bizarre obssession with going to the UK.

jwl seems convinced his island home is a fortress and impregnable. So why should he give a fuck what's going on in the MENA or rest of Europe?

My point is that the UK is not a fortress. Distance and water is not enough to "protect" the UK. I used the example of both the Cuba-Florida situation and the 100,000+ illegal Chinese the US gets every year as an example of how neither distance nor lack of modern vessel is an obstacle to the desperate. The navies of multiple nations patrol the Straits of Florida and still can not prevent people from making the cross in improvised vessels.

You are correct, Starglider, only a small fraction of refugees at this time desire to go to the UK, but if circumstances change, if the shit hits the fan in Europe, then yes, more might well decide to go to Britain. If they do, you will not be able to stop all of them... and that is why the UK should have some care for what's going on in Europe and MENA.

[Starglider]

Distance and water is not enough to "protect" the UK.

Of course. But then if the UK wanted to spend 10% of its GDP on a massive litoral navy and SAM network that would enforce Soviet levels of border and airspace control, it could do so. Both situations are academic because the UK doesn't want to become East Germany and millions of migrants are not going to suddenly and arbitrarily decide that something about the UK is worth the extra hassle of getting there.

You are correct, Starglider, only a small fraction of refugees at this time desire to go to the UK, but if circumstances change, if the shit hits the fan in Europe, then yes, more might well decide to go to Britain.

If you believe Stas, Thanas etc, then Europe (at least, northern Europe) will always be far more desireable than the UK. Germany in particular has eternal and unchallengable moral, economic and cultural superiority. So nothing to worry about then for poor old Britain. As for the two-three million legal migrants from the EU to the UK, no doubt they were all personally bribed by David Cameron or had some taint of capitalism deep in their souls that could only be assauged by moving to Shoreditch.

If they do, you will not be able to stop all of them... and that is why the UK should have some care for what's going on in Europe and MENA.

The UK should care about what's going on the middle east because it is a humanitarian catastrophe and also impacts several vital national interests. The situation in Europe is much less serious than the MENA; that is exactly why people are migrating from MENA to Europe; but it is a major diplomatic issue. The vague threat of a tsunami of migrants trying to cross the English Channel is frankly the least important reason why the UK should try to help.

[Broomstick]

Appealing to shared humanity only works for someone with empathy and a system of ethics extending beyond "Fuck you, hurrah for me."

[Thanas]

If you believe Stas, Thanas etc, then Europe (at least, northern Europe) will always be far more desireable than the UK. Germany in particular has eternal and unchallengable moral, economic and cultural superiority. So nothing to worry about then for poor old Britain. As for the two-three million legal migrants from the EU to the UK, no doubt they were all personally bribed by David Cameron or had some taint of capitalism deep in their souls that could only be assauged by moving to Shoreditch.

You are my favorite furry troll on this board, Starglider.

[jwl]

What is this bizarre obssession with going to the UK.

jwl seems convinced his island home is a fortress and impregnable.

That makes it sound like I arbitrarily decided that no amount of people can get past border control under any circumstances, instead of looking at a realistic number of refugees and working out whether we can handle it. Let's look at some facts:
>So far, attempts to illegally cross over at Calais have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
>Smugglers tend to try to smuggle goods through ports, rather than land illegally, because landing illegally is so difficult.
>The rate of syrian boats entering greece, assuming they are all coming in four-man dingies, just so happens to be the rate that the striat of Dover authorities have to manage every day.
>This rate is unlikely to attempt crossing at the UK, because that assumes that all of the countries on the way to the UK have no border controls, all the countries with land borders to these through countries have perfect border controls, and none of the refugees attempt to stay in any of the countries along the way instead.

So why should he give a fuck what's going on in the MENA or rest of Europe?

I do care what is happening in MENA and southern Europe. I just am more concerned about what is happening to refugees in the middle east than those in europe, more concerned about what is happening to lebonon than to greece, and I think helping out is a choice, not an obligation.

[Thanas]

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

[Iroscato]

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

Quick Q: Is Pigfucking Britain a reference to Cameron's porcine perversions? If so, kindly do not group us all with that guffing, disgusting twat, or the moron posting above. Some of us actually have empathy and want this situation to be addressed rather than our usual practise of burying our heads in the sand like a bunch of isolationist dickheads.

[jwl]

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

As I said previously, I would need to do more research to come up with a quantitative figure. However, provisionally 10-30% of our current net migration per year would be reasonable. Of that, 0% should come from Europe.

[Thanas]

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

Quick Q: Is Pigfucking Britain a reference to Cameron's porcine perversions? If so, kindly do not group us all with that guffing, disgusting twat, or the moron posting above. Some of us actually have empathy and want this situation to be addressed rather than our usual practise of burying our heads in the sand like a bunch of isolationist dickheads.

It is a reference to the people in the UK who share the pigfuckers opinion on refugees. As long as 57% think the numbers of accepted refugees should decrease or stay the same, I shall continue to refer them that way. As you are not a member of that pigfucking Britain, it is not meant at you.

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

As I said previously, I would need to do more research to come up with a quantitative figure. However, provisionally 10-30% of our current net migration per year would be reasonable. Of that, 0% should come from Europe.

So you want the numbers to be 30-90k at most? Are you fucking serious?

Germany will handle about 1 mil. Kindly explain why the UK is unable to not even handle 10% of that.

[jwl]

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

Quick Q: Is Pigfucking Britain a reference to Cameron's porcine perversions? If so, kindly do not group us all with that guffing, disgusting twat, or the moron posting above. Some of us actually have empathy and want this situation to be addressed rather than our usual practise of burying our heads in the sand like a bunch of isolationist dickheads.

It is a reference to the people in the UK who share the pigfuckers opinion on refugees. As long as 57% think the numbers of accepted refugees should decrease or stay the same, I shall continue to refer them that way. As you are not a member of that pigfucking Britain, it is not meant at you.

This sounds a lot like a copout. "You can't force me to take these refugees, instead I'll take a miniscule amount from somewhere. Yes, this is real help. Don't blame me".

Fucking disgusting and the opinion of cowardly scum is what it is.

How about you come up with a number you think Pigfucking Britain can handle and then show why that is the maximum capacity?

As I said previously, I would need to do more research to come up with a quantitative figure. However, provisionally 10-30% of our current net migration per year would be reasonable. Of that, 0% should come from Europe.

So you want the numbers to be 30-90k at most? Are you fucking serious?

Germany will handle about 1 mil. Kindly explain why the UK is unable to not even handle 10% of that.

That is of course, presuming Germany actually can handle 1 million per year. We don't know that yet, we'll have to wait and see to what the impact will be. But regardless, the situation is different in the UK. As someone said, the UK has a housing shortage. Also, while Germany's businesses need more labour, the UK's don't, unless you are talking about qualified labour. And anyway, if Germany really intends to continue taking 1 million a year, the middle east will run out of refugees in ~5 years, so the situation will sort itself out without us having to do anything.