Europe Refugee Crisis

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Haha, how could my suggestions be naïve and disturbing all at the same time?



That is the problem faced with security forces - how can you tell the good guys from the bad amongst a sea of pleading, desperate people and you only have as long as it takes for them to get a seat on a bus/train?

You cannot, which is why the terrorists are getting through.

My solution is to let the refugees in, but keep them quarantined in camps. You avert a humanitarian and moral disaster, but do not compromise your own security.

They can come in as refugees, and will be looked after and treated as such, but they will not automatically get settlement rights within the EU because they are refugees. Not when there are that many of them.

You cannot tell if someone is a radical traveling with them but your chances gets exponentially better if you live and work with someone for months or years at a time. Its a little Big Brother and police state like to use citizens to spy and inform on each other, but it works.

Having them in camps also allows you the time to make sure everyone is thoroughly vetted, and only those with the qualifications needed and who's background and story could be verified as unimpeachable would be allowed to leave the camps to integrate with society at large. Even after, I would still have the security forces keep close eyes on them, and demand strict registration and other security related conditions as part of the terms and conditions of allowing them to settle.

In the meantime, send in the troops to clear ISIS out of Syria once and for all so the refugees you don't want or need could go home (and most of them would want to after years stuck in a refugee camp).

I think far from naïve, my suggestions are very radical and borderline draconian. But they are not as heartless, silly and ineffective as the British Government's suggestion of only allowing in women and children, even if they are traveling with male relatives.

I do think you're naive :) no offense. Your solution while noble and perhaps even logical will simply NOT work in the real world.

We're talking hundreds of thousands of refugees. Almost all have cell phones and access to social media.

First, there is going to be humongous political backlash building this gargantuan camps. The last thing any european leader wants is to be seen building 'camps' housing tens of thousands of foreigners. especially with media sensationlism.

Second. How are you going to keep the people from 'escaping'? You basically have to fashion the camps like concentration camps with towers, armed guards, barb wires etc. Again imagine how all this would look to the outside world.. in the world of FB, Youtube, Twitter etc.

In the meantime while you are spending months vetting everyone, a similar amount would've come in. It would be like a perpetual cycle of refugees coming into the camps and therefore not sustainable.

You would've spend billions of dollars doing all these and might get luckily and catch a few with nefarious intentions.
What about those that don't passed the so called vetting process? Do you send his whole family back or just him? If you do he'll be on the next boat ride back again. Do you put him in the local prison? How to you fit hundreds of these young foreign fighters in local prisons? the political ramifications would be immense.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I do think you're naive :) no offense. Your solution while noble and perhaps even logical will simply NOT work in the real world.

We're talking hundreds of thousands of refugees. Almost all have cell phones and access to social media.

First, there is going to be humongous political backlash building this gargantuan camps. The last thing any european leader wants is to be seen building 'camps' housing tens of thousands of foreigners. especially with media sensationlism.

Second. How are you going to keep the people from 'escaping'? You basically have to fashion the camps like concentration camps with towers, armed guards, barb wires etc. Again imagine how all this would look to the outside world.. in the world of FB, Youtube, Twitter etc.

What makes you think I would care what the rabble of social media thinks and says? Told you I was of a draconian persuasion. ;)

Let them report on the camps and make all the silly comparisons they want. It might serve to help stem to flow of refugees into Europe if they see that is what awaited them. Kind of a self vetting profess to weed out the opportunistic economic immigrants before they even get to a European boarder.

Besides, there already are plenty of camps pretty much like this throughout the Middle East. Don't remember much social media backlash against them.

In the meantime while you are spending months vetting everyone, a similar amount would've come in. It would be like a perpetual cycle of refugees coming into the camps and therefore not sustainable.

There a finite amount of Syrian refugees, and as I said, once word gets out, it should help to convince many if not most of them to not bother.

Besides, all those hundreds of thousands of refugees already at the camps needs something to do, so I would organise work gangs out of them and have them do the bulk of the work building and maintaining the camps.

You can pay them with cash and/or promises. With cash, a fair wage is enough, and should be considerably less than what domestic EU labourers would cost.

Promises could be a points based system so people could improve their chances of being accepted as refugees (it can be an empty promise! Just don't tell the refugees!)

You would've spend billions of dollars doing all these and might get luckily and catch a few with nefarious intentions.

How much economic damage did 9/11 cause? How many millions and billions would the Paris attacks cost France ultimately in the end?

You are also not fully understanding the nature of the camps and my proposed policy. The camps are not a holding area until people are processed and allowed into the EU and ultimately settle. It is the end of the line for the vast majority, intending to hold them until EU troops has made Syria safe enough for them to return.

What about those that don't passed the so called vetting process? Do you send his whole family back or just him? If you do he'll be on the next boat ride back again. Do you put him in the local prison? How to you fit hundreds of these young foreign fighters in local prisons? the political ramifications would be immense.

If they fail to meet entry requirements, they stay in the camp unless they want to go back.

I would leave it up to the family to decide. They can all stay in the camp, where they are all safe at least, or the rest of the family could go into the EU and settle without whoever failed the vetting (the person left out would be allowed visitation under close police supervision, so ankle bracelet trackers, right for police to monitor his calls and emails while he is in the country, maybe even direct monitoring if deemed necessary).

The camp is not meant to be a permanent solution. Its a holding action designed to buy the EU the time needed to pacify and secure Syria so they could all go home.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Such a project would never take off in Europe etc. No politician would risk their career maybe life to even propose such draconian solution. It will certainly not pass in parliament or the voting public.
Don't forget Europe is already home to millions of citizens who are Muslim and of north African heritage. Many politicians are also. They will certainly not put up with such measures.

IMHO resources and energy would be much better spent battling the root cause of islamic terrors... and I've already mentioned the root cause in my many posts here.
 

solarz

Brigadier
No offense, Wolf, but the whole "refugee camp" thing has been tried already. I think they call it "Palestine". ;)

If I might be allowed to put in my two cents here, Europe is facing an earthshaking migration, and it is foolish to both try to resist this human tide, or to try to go on with the current social structure.

First, it is foolish to try to resist this migration because Europe is geographically connected to the Middle East. You cannot secure the entire Mediterranean coast or thousands of miles open country. Since it doesn't look like the mess in Iraq and Syria will be resolved anytime soon, trying to stem the tide of migration would be like trying to keep the lid on a pressure cooker. If you're lucky, steam will escape from various openings. If you're not, the whole thing will explode in your face. Those refugees will have to go somewhere, and if they're not properly settled and absorbed, we will end up with a crisis that makes Syria and Iraq look like a border skirmish.

Now, what would it take to properly settle those millions of refugees all the while preventing terror cells from infiltrating European society?

The answer is to have security policies that take into account the reality of accepting all these refugees. I'm talking about expanded security apparatus, including intelligence and surveillance, drastically stronger control on firearms and explosive, much tighter border control, etc.

In other words, learn from countries that actually have to deal with those kinds of problems.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I think the European refugee crisis has been an example in point that the old adage of "don't shit where you eat" applies very much to geopolitics on a national level.

In hindsight, I think Europe already pushed its luck greatly with Ukraine. Although it got very luck with that because the demographic, political and military realities on the ground meant the fighting was confined to the East of the country, so the bulk of the refugees went East, into Russia, rather than head West towards the EU. The fighting was also largely confined to unpopulated rural areas or out of the way strategic locations like airports, rather than being waged in dense population centres, as it has done in Syria.

Had things gone even a little differently, I think Europe would have had a massive refugee crisis long before things kicked-off in Syria.
 

Zool

Junior Member
Getting a handle on this migrant situation and developing policies to deal with it is proving a real challenge:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

© AFP 2015/ Louisa Gouliamaki
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

20:07 26.11.2015

The EU plans to accelerate the removal of tens of thousands of illegal Pakistani immigrants, in an attempt to make more room for the continuing exodus of people fleeing violence in the Middle East.

The decision has raised questions about how nations quantify who is a legitimate refugee, and where to draw the line between who is allowed leave to stay and who is deported.

This year's migrant crisis has put enormous strain on many countries in Europe. Politically, it has exposed the significant differences in opinions within the bloc on how to manage so many new immigrants.

During a visit to Islamabad earlier this month, European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos, said that Pakistan is not considered a dangerous country to return migrants to:

"Pakistanis will not qualify as political refugees. Pakistan is under a democratic process… It is not a country where its citizens are persecuted, and great progress has been done by authorities in Pakistan in order to pave a democratic perspective for their country."

However, some Pakistani officials are unhappy with the way the EU is handling the situation.

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan accused EU states of not confirming the nationalities of those being deported.

He also alleged that some Pakistanis were being deported on false suspicions that they had connections to terrorist groups.

"This is tantamount to insulting Pakistanis and humanity," Mr Khan said.

The EU's assertion that there isn't persecution in Pakistan will also be news to the families of an estimated 60,000 people who have been killed in religious violence in the country over the last 20 years. Pakistani Christians, in particular, continue to be vulnerable to attacks from hardline Islamists.

1029533689.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Pakistan is subject to restrictive blasphemy laws, banning misusing religious epithets, defiling the Holy Quran and using derogatory remarks in respect of the Prophet Muhammad.

However, in 2012 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers found that the country's laws were being used by extremist groups to persecute and kill those who had different religious views.

The EU, however, has now turned its attention to violence closer to its shores.

There have been nearly 800,000 migrants, in certain instances, making perilous journeys across the sea to reach Europe this year. And with unrest continuing to plague Syria and Iraq, this number is expected to rise.

So, even if the EU is able to deport all the illegal Pakistanis on its territory, is this a sustainable solution to the migrant crisis?

Many migration experts fear not, saying that any relief would only be temporary.

There are calls for EU states to agree on a consensus on how to share the migrants fairly across the continent.

1030821780.jpg
 
I'm not getting this:
Osborne reliant on rising immigration levels to achieve budget surplus
Guardian analysis shows that without recent upward revisions of net migration numbers, chancellor would not achieve budget surplus by 2019-20

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is relying on rising immigration numbers to reach his fiscal target of a budget surplus by the end of the decade, according to a Guardian analysis of official data.

Without the UK’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the chancellor would be faced with the choice of missing his fiscal goal or achieving a surplus by adding more spending cuts and tax rises to his existing plans.

Analysis of figures from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(OBR), the government’s independent forecasting body, has found that Britain’s finances would not be forecast to hit a budget surplus by 2019-20 without recent upward revisions to net migration numbers.

The OBR has raised its projections for inward migration twice this year. Eight months ago, its projection went from 105,000 people a year to 165,000. The figure was revised again to 185,000 as part of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
published alongside Osborne’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and autumn statement last week.

As a result of the extra jobs and tax incomes, and changes to the composition of the UK’s working-age population, generated by the influx, the OBR has revised up the level of potential economic output for the UK by 0.9%.

Under the OBR’s calculations, if projected net migration had remained unchanged at 105,000 a year, the boost to output would have been negligible. Without the additional output generated by those changed migration forecasts, the projected budget surplus would drop to zero and the only feasible way to achieve one by 2020 would have been through additional spending cuts or tax rises.

Furthermore, based on OBR data and the evidence available, it is highly likely that the government’s intention of reducing net migration to the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” is directly at odds with its fiscal target.

The OBR’s latest fiscal sustainability report,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, stated that net inward migration in line with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) high migration scenario of 225,000 a year would reduce the primary budget deficit by 0.5% of GDP and net debt by 17% of GDP by 2064-65, relative to the OBR’s central projection. In the low migration scenario (105,000 a year), the primary budget deficit would increase by 0.5% of GDP and net debt by 20% of GDP by 2064-65.

During last week’s autumn statement,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: “The OBR has seen our public expenditure plans and analysed their effect on our economy. Their forecast today is that the economy will grow robustly every year, living standards will rise every year, and more than a million extra jobs will be created over the next five years.”

However, the OBR’s outlook provided further details behind Osborne’s claims:
  • The 1.1m increase in employment cited by Osborne is mostly because of upward revisions to net migration.
  • The upward revisions to GDP growth forecasts in 2016 and 2017 reflect higher population growth (driven by higher net migration) and the government’s decision to slow the pace of fiscal tightening.
  • Net migration is predominantly concentrated among people of working age: this boosts the employment rate, GDP, potential output and tax receipts.
The chancellor made no reference to immigration in his statement, while
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are limited to foreign students’ contribution to education exports – largely through fees for further education. The documents also refer to improved management of UK borders and the removal of illegal immigrants.

It is not the first time the OBR has presented high net migration in a positive light.

Its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
suggested that across the whole economy, inward migration adds more to government income than to expenditure on services like schools and health. The report said higher net inward migration is likely to improve the long-term fiscal position and any reduction in immigration would be likely to create additional fiscal pressures.

However, keen to emphasise that any political judgement lies outside its remit, the OBR also said a government that succeeded in reducing net inward migration could always choose to offset those fiscal pressures through additional spending cuts or tax increases.

The chancellor’s office had yet to provide a comment at the time of publication.

Figures released last week by the ONS show that annualised
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, indicating that further revisions to the OBR’s projections may be in store.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top