Go Back   Ukraine.com Discussion Forum > Open Board > Open Board

Notices


Refugees or economic migrants?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 28th February 2017, 11:47
Gotno Gizmo Gotno Gizmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,298
Gotno Gizmo is on a distinguished road
In response to Dobko

George Soros was funder of organisations acting against communist injustice in Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He continued to fund organisations who he hoped would aid the development of democracy and free media in those years following the collapse of communism and the subsequent vacuum of honest and politically mature leadership in those former European communist satellite states. As an example, as former communist leadership used their previous establishment power to continue their roles under a different style regime Soros, concerned that these leaders would take them back into a form of "socialism" funded budding democracy movements with the resources to set up independent media (printing presses and newsprint paper etc) to counter that media already in the power of former communists. I think that countries such as Hungary and to a lesser degree Romania benefitted from his intervention.

Concerning today's refugee situation, I have no doubt that Soros is funding organisations that support refugees and economic migrants who are displaced and in need. I have not read enough to know about how such funds intervene in this support process, but I have not seen any evidence so far that Soros is supporting people traffickers or any other illegal organisations. Perhaps Dobko you could enlighten me if this is the case.

This position does not however put me in the "refugees" welcome camp as is evident by my previous posts within this thread. When I was in Iraq and Syria (before the recent wars) I noted whilst walking in the streets that everyone appeared to be under 30 years of age. As I was employed in import/export and logistics at that time I understood that more than 60% of food was having to be imported (probably more than 70% now). I understood that their ability to reproduce themselves was exceeding their ability to sustain themselves and thus not withstanding their ability to fight among their tribes and religious sects, that at some point in time they would have to march north to greener pastures in order to survive.

The same could be said about huge swathes of Africa. However, not only is a bourgeoning population bringing those same problems as mentioned above, but it is aggravated by the lifestyles of distant populations. In richer and colder energy consuming countries, this pollution is undeniably creating climate change meaning that dry areas are getting drier and regions subject to tropical rains are being subject to floods that take away the topsoil. Both of these situations reduce crop growth. Furthermore too many of these African states suffer Yanukovych type leadership within these poor countries and wealth is taken out from these economies.

Given everything I have written above, it is compensatory that whilst at 73 years of age my future life is limited, I will not have to face the future dilemma that I believe faces western and northern states. Only true optimists believe that modern agricultural development can feed the world based on present population growth and climate change trends. The only answer to this oversupply of superfluous population is fertility control. Even in the industrialised world mechanisation and computerisation is removing the need of workers. Even if a region can feed its population, if it cannot keep them usefully employed they will become dysfunctional and excessively troublesome, resulting in incoherence and division.

Thus, in the short term those countries closest to the current migration problem probably in Europe have the best idea to erect fences to keep illegal travellers out. The European Union cannot face up to this problem in Europe and individual EU states will have to determine their own actions to safeguard their own state's well being.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 28th February 2017, 17:41
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,825
Hannia will become famous soon enough
Refugees and migrants taking 'enormous risks' to reach Europe – UN agency
UN4REFUGEESMIGRANTS 27 Feb 2017

Increased border restrictions and lack of accessible legal ways to reach Europe have caused refugees and migrants to take more “diversified and dangerous journeys,” such as relying on people-smugglers or using flimsy boats to cross rough seas, a new report by the United Nations refugee agency has revealed.

“This report clearly shows that the lack of accessible and safe pathways leads refugees and migrants to take enormous risks while attempting to reach Europe, including those simply trying to join family members.” said Vincent Cochetel, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Director of Europe Bureau, in a news release announcing the report.

According to Desperate Journeys, issued today by UNHCR, the “closure” of the Western Balkan route and the European Union (EU)-Turkey Statement in March 2016, caused a drastic decrease in the number of people reaching Greece via the Eastern Mediterranean route.

However since then, the Central Mediterranean route from North Africa to Italy become the primary entry point to Europe and arrival trends in Italy show that the primary nationalities who crossed to Greece had not switched in significant numbers to the Central Mediterranean route.

In addition to drowning, migrants and refugees also risk of being kidnapped, held against their will for several days, physical and sexual abuse, torture and extortion by smugglers and criminal gangs at several points along key routes.

The Central Mediterranean route
The UN agency pointed out that in 2016, some 181,436 arrived in Italy by sea in need of international protection, and also victims of trafficking and migrants seeking better lives. About 90 per cent of them travelled by boat from Libya, and the top two nationalities of those arriving were Nigerians (21 per cent) and Eritreans (11 per cent).
This route is particularly dangerous and, in 2016, recorded more deaths at sea than ever before.

RELATED: UN reports more than 300 migrant deaths on Mediterranean crossing in first two months of 2017

Furthermore, children making this journey are especially vulnerable, and the number of unaccompanied and separated children arriving is increasing. Last year more than 25,000 came, representing 14 per cent of all new arrivals in Italy.

“Their number more than doubled compared to the previous year,” said UNHCR.

The Western and Eastern Mediterranean routes

The report also showed that in the last part of 2016, more people reached the continent through the Western Mediterranean route, either by crossing the sea to Spain from Morocco and Algeria, or by entering the Spanish enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta.

Similarly, people continued to leave Turkey along the Eastern Mediterranean route from April onwards, but in much smaller numbers. Most crossed the sea to Greece or Cyprus, others also crossed via land into the country or into Bulgaria.

Most who arrived by sea to Greece (87 per cent) came from the top ten refugee producing countries.

This was also the case for those who continued to move along the Western Balkans route: in Serbia, for instance, 82 per cent of those who arrived came from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and almost half are children – 20 per cent of those unaccompanied.

These numbers, however, numbers have reduced since April 2016, noted UNHCR.

Additionally, according to the study, tens of thousands of people also have been reportedly pushed back by border authorities in Europe, including in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Serbia, Spain, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with many cases of alleged violence and abuses in an apparent attempt to deter further entry attempts.
UN News Centre
United Nations News Centre - Refugees and migrants taking &#39enormous risks&#39 to reach Europe &#8211 UN agency
__________________

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 28th February 2017, 17:57
Gotno Gizmo Gotno Gizmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,298
Gotno Gizmo is on a distinguished road
In Response to Dobko

George Soros was funder of organisations acting against communist injustice in Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He continued to fund organisations who he hoped would aid the development of democracy and free media in those years following the collapse of communism and the subsequent vacuum of honest and politically mature leadership in those former European communist satellite states. As an example, as former communist leadership used their previous establishment power to continue their roles under a different style regime Soros, concerned that these leaders would take them back into a form of "socialism" funded budding democracy movements with the resources to set up independent media (printing presses and newsprint paper etc) to counter that media already in the power of former communists. I think that countries such as Hungary and to a lesser degree Romania benefitted from his intervention.

Concerning today's refugee situation, I have no doubt that Soros is funding organisations that support refugees and economic migrants who are displaced and in need. I have not read enough to know about how such funds impact in this support process, but I have not seen any evidence so far that Soros is supporting people traffickers or any other illegal organisations. Perhaps Dobko you could enlighten me if this is the case.

This position does not however put me in the "refugees" welcome camp as is evident by my previous posts within this thread. When I was in Iraq and Syria (before the recent wars) I noted whilst walking in the streets that everyone appeared to be under 30 years of age. As I was employed in import/export and logistics at that time I understood that more than 60% of food was having to be imported (probably more than 70% now). I understood that their ability to reproduce themselves was exceeding their ability to sustain themselves and thus not withstanding their ability to fight among their tribes and religious sects, that at some point in time they would have to march north to greener pastures in order to survive.

The same could be said about huge swathes of Africa. However, not only is a bourgeoning population bringing those same problems as mentioned above, but it is aggravated by the lifestyles of distant populations. In richer and colder energy consuming countries, this pollution is undeniably creating climate change meaning that dry areas are getting drier and regions subject to tropical rains are being subject to floods that take away the topsoil. Both of these situations reduce crop growth. Furthermore too many of these African states suffer Yanukovych type leadership within these poor countries and wealth is taken out from these economies.

Given everything I have written above, it is compensatory that whilst at 73 years of age my future life is limited, I will not have to face the future dilemma that I believe faces western and northern states. Only true optimists believe that modern agricultural development can feed the world based on present population growth and climate change trends. The only answer to this oversupply of superfluous population is fertility control. Even in the industrialised world mechanisation and computerisation is removing the need of workers. Even if a region can feed its population, if it cannot keep them usefully employed they will become dysfunctional and excessively troublesome, resulting in incoherence and division.

Thus, in the short term those countries closest to the current migration problem probably in Europe have the best idea to erect fences to keep illegal travellers out. The European Union cannot face up to this problem in Europe and individual EU states will have to determine their own actions to safeguard their own state's well being.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 2nd March 2017, 19:57
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,825
Hannia will become famous soon enough
The impossibility of Britain’s net-migration target
The government will struggle to reduce annual net migration to below 100,000
THE ECONOMIST C.W. Feb 28th 2017

IN THE year to September “net” migration to Britain was around 300,000. The figure is calculated by subtracting the number of people leaving the country from the number arriving. The government has wanted to cut the net-migration figure to the “tens of thousands” since the Conservatives took power in 2010, a target that has grown only more urgent after the Brexit vote, which it interprets as a vote to reduce immigration. On a legalistic reading, it is therefore targeting net migration of, at most, 99,999 (but preferably far lower). Yet without big changes to British society and the economy, meeting the target is near impossible. Why?

The British government can probably rely on net emigration of British nationals of about 50,000 per year. As a result, net migration of foreign nationals could hit around 150,000 a year, and the government could still hit its target. There are three main ways that people enter Britain: to work, to study and to be part of a family. It looks hard for the British government to cut net migration of foreign family members, which numbers around 70,000 a year once you include refugees. Recent court rulings have indicated that the British government’s no-nonsense rules on family reunifications, which impose tough income requirements on visa sponsors, probably could not be made tighter.

So even before dealing with the other two sources of net migration (work and study) the British government is already halfway towards 150,000. Net migration of foreign students is around 100,000. Some argue that students should be excluded from the figures but the government has rejected this suggestion: after all, like any other people students use public transport and the NHS. Imagine instead that the government cut it in half. That would damage a lucrative industry, and the quality of British research would suffer. But it would bring net migration of students down to around 50,000. With net migration then sitting at around 120,000, the government would turn to workers. It could abolish all unskilled migration from outside the EU. That would probably cut overall net migration by zero: there is almost no migration of unskilled workers from outside the EU. The government could however completely cut unskilled migration from the EU. That would reduce the total by around 50,000 a year.

That leaves just skilled migration, from both inside and outside the EU. That currently stands at about 60,000-70,000 a year. Were the government to allow all that, it would still overshoot its target, perhaps by 30,000-40,000 people. So it would probably have to cut skilled migration too. For an economy which is likely to be buffeted by changing trade relationships as it leaves the EU, cutting off the supply of skilled workers doesn’t make very much sense. Which is why pulling net migration below 100,000 is likely to remain a pipe dream.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...omist-explains
=========================
In time the economy will help Britain empty out both the economic migrants and the refugees of its own accord.
__________________

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 2nd March 2017, 23:01
Hannia Hannia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,825
Hannia will become famous soon enough
After Trump Win, Anti-Soros Forces Are Emboldened in Eastern Europe
NY TIMES RICK LYMAN MARCH 1, 2017

BUDAPEST — Emboldened by encouraging signals from the Trump administration, populist leaders across Central and Eastern Europe are mounting simultaneous crackdowns on nongovernmental organizations, once protected by Washington, that promote open government, aid refugees and often serve as checks on authoritarian governments.

In Hungary, where the movement has reached a fever pitch, supporters of Prime Minister Viktor Orban are vilifying “foreign-funded” N.G.O.s — especially those succored by George Soros, the liberal American billionaire — and accusing the groups of wanting to flood Europe with Muslim refugees and transform “Christian” nations into multicultural stews of left-wing globalism. Earlier this week, Zoltan Kovacs, Mr. Orban’s chief international spokesman, described the organizations as “foreign agents financed by foreign money.”

Macedonia’s former autocratic prime minister, Nikola Gruevski, has called for a “de-Sorosization” of society, labeling opponents “Soros-oids” and inspiring a “Stop Operation Soros” movement in January. Poland’s governing party leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, says Soros-funded groups want “societies without identity,” and backs fresh efforts to regulate them. In Romania, where hundreds of thousands of anticorruption protesters took to the streets in recent weeks, the leader of the governing party charged that Mr. Soros “financed evil” and has vowed to defeat him. Similar efforts have begun or accelerated in Serbia, Slovakia and Bulgaria since Mr. Trump’s victory.

“These organizations must be pushed back with all available tools,” Szilard Nemeth, vice chairman of Hungary’s governing Fidesz party, told journalists. “I think they must be swept out, and now I believe the international conditions are right for this with the election of a new president.”

For more than a half-century, as Europe first struggled from the ashes of World War II and then shrugged off its Soviet shackles, American-backed nongovernmental organizations have been active across Europe, often called upon to explain the West’s style of democratic capitalism to people who have known neither. Their presence often annoyed the Continent’s more authoritarian-minded leaders, who regard many of the groups to be irritants at best, and threats at worst.

Traditionally, United States administrations of both parties have promoted the spread of democracy and stubbornly defended these advocacy groups. But Mr. Trump has said he will not press America’s political system on other countries and has embraced some of Europe’s far-right leaders. He also has criticized the European Union and made disparaging remarks about some democratic principles — including his frequent criticism of the news media.

For populist leaders like Mr. Orban, who has steadily steered Hungary toward so-called illiberal democracy, this new tone from the White House is regarded as a major opportunity.

“They see it as a historical moment,” said Jozsef Peter Martin, executive director of Transparency International’s Hungary branch. “The geopolitical situation has changed.”

For years, populist and authoritarian governments have been targeting “foreign-funded” organizations in many parts of the world, from China to India, and especially in Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia. Similar talk was common in Central and Eastern Europe, but now governments in Hungary and elsewhere are pushing beyond political speeches to propose legislation.

“Orban has talked about the Trump era being a new international opportunity for Hungary,” said Marta Pardavi, co-founder of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, which gets about 30 percent of its funding from Soros-backed foundations. “He said it was a gift to us.”

Gergely Gulyas, a vice president of Hungary’s governing party, agreed that Mr. Trump’s victory had created a geopolitical climate more attractive to Hungary’s current leaders, but he cautioned against seeing that as the decisive reason for the crackdown.

“I think we would have done this even if Hillary Clinton had won,” he said.

He and other supporters of the Hungarian government say the outcry by civil society is a vast overreaction to what is simply a common-sense attempt to force the organizations to be more “transparent” — effectively turning the language of the advocacy groups against them.

In Hungary, governing party officials first began criticizing foreign-funded N.G.O.s in 2013. The following year, state investigators targeted organizations that received money from the Norway Grants, which the Scandinavian nation uses to promote social and economic equality in the formerly communist East. Agents raided the Budapest offices of three organizations and demanded documentation from dozens of others. But the investigators’ final report, released last fall, found no serious infringements of Hungarian law, and no charges were leveled.

But shortly after Mr. Trump’s election, Fidesz leaders immediately renewed their attacks on “foreign-funded” N.G.O.s, as the new villains were groups sponsored by Mr. Soros, while also proposing new legislative restrictions. Fidesz officials have not unveiled their proposals but say they intend to create a registry of such organizations and force them to disclose their financial details. Some officials have proposed forcing local N.G.O. leaders to disclose their personal finances.

“It is only about transparency,” Mr. Gulyas said. “This is a debate that is taking place around the world. An important debate about the future of democracy.”

But advocacy groups say it is more about harassment and intimidation. Stefania Kapronczay, executive director of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, which gets over half its funding from Soros-backed organizations, said Hungarian officials were “testing the waters” to see “what they can get away with.” New restrictions would have a “chilling effect,” she said.

“Some small N.G.O.s just quit,” she said. “The willingness of people to cooperate with us decreases.”

Born in Budapest in 1930, Mr. Soros and his Jewish family survived the Nazi occupation with false identity papers. He eventually became a Wall Street financier and ultimately made billions through his own hedge fund, Soros Fund Management. He established the Open Society Foundations as an umbrella group for his philanthropy and has given more than $12 billion to date. His philanthropic work promotes democracy, government accountability and freedom of expression — and, he has said, is driven by his memories of life under the Nazis.

“You couldn’t come up with a better enemy figure today,” said Jan Orlovsky, director of the Slovak branch of the Open Society Foundations. “George Soros brings up all of the stereotypes we have lived with all our lives — about Jews, bankers and, in Slovakia, also about Hungarians.”

Chris Stone, the president of the Open Society Foundations, described the governmental crackdowns as “a campaign by government leaders who are impatient with the institutions of democracy.”

Macedonia, struggling to form a new government in the debris of a two-year political crisis, has taken perhaps the most forceful anti-Soros stance. The Stop Operation Soros campaign pushes the idea that international pressure — from N.G.O.s and Western governments — forced the recent fall of the right-wing government of Mr. Gruevski, who hopes to return to power.

“We believe that, in these murky times, it is really important to take away the mask of the so-called civic organizations and to clearly reveal their political goals and actions, as well as their financing,” said Nenad Mirchevski, a founder of the movement.

In Poland, against a flare-up of anti-Soros statements, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo said her government intended to create a new body to coordinate state funding for all nongovernmental organizations. In Slovakia, a far-right-wing party proposed forcing “foreign-funded” N.G.O.s to register with the government. That effort did not succeed, but that did little to slow the tide of anti-Soros speech.

“Demonic forces of evil, represented by Soros, the Clintons, the Bush family and others, have not come to terms with losing the election, so they keep attacking Trump and want to get rid of him,” said a recent article in Hlavne Spravy, a right-wing Slovak daily.

From the moment Romania’s nominally socialist party was returned to power in December, its populist leader, Liviu Dragnea, has pressed for more control over N.G.O.s. “I have something against Mr. Soros,” Mr. Dragnea said in a late January interview. In Bulgaria, both Mr. Soros and organizations that defend human rights have come under attack. A local newspaper, shortly after Mr. Trump’s victory, described Mr. Soros as a “liberal terrorist.” In Serbia, local right-wing and pro-Russian publications have linked Mr. Soros to the Rothschilds, highlighted his Jewishness and described his efforts as an “anti-Trump radical movement.”

“And we are only at the start of the story,” said Laszlo Majtenyi, director of the Eotvos Karoly Institute in Budapest, a Soros-founded organization, and a left-wing coalition candidate for president in April. Once the government has stigmatized the groups as “foreign-funded,” he said, future crackdowns will be easier.

And there is always the chance that authoritarian governments will feel emboldened enough to simply toss out the offending organizations.

“This is where European democratic values will be defended,” said Goran Buldioski, director of the Open Society Initiative for Europe. “In Hungary and Poland, not in Western Europe. Democracy is more than just the ballot box, and it is more than something that happens every four years.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/w...dayspaper&_r=0
__________________

æ, !

Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 27th April 2017, 10:25
Gotno Gizmo Gotno Gizmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,298
Gotno Gizmo is on a distinguished road
A visa is a legal means of entry

In an earlier post a UN agency is reported to have written:
Increased border restrictions and lack of accessible legal ways to reach Europe have caused refugees and migrants to take more “diversified and dangerous journeys,” such as relying on people-smugglers or using flimsy boats to cross rough seas, a new report by the United Nations refugee agency has revealed.


There has always been a legal method of entering a nation (or group of nations in the case of Schengen) it is called a visa which is obtained from the consulate or a contracted agent to receive visa applications. There is a fee to be paid and the various countries demand certain evidence of suitability to enter their nation. It takes several days to process the application and many countries have severe conditions to be satisfied that often result in the visa application being refused without refund of the fee.

I assume the UN feel that it is unpractical for a real refugee to comply with the above on the grounds that he may not have the potentially large funds for the visa application fee, or that the refugee in fear of his life and doesn't have time to await the visa application outcome, or he would be putting himself at risk by attending a visa application building as local regime police were overseeing that visa office entrance, that war had broken out and that the visa office had closed or was destroyed etc.

I am sure that most genuine refugees ensure they have forms of identity documentation on their person to substantiate their claim. However a significant number of "refugees" deliberately dispose of their identification so that the false declarations they make concerning their status cannot be easily disproved and neither can they be deported back to their countries of origin if it has not been determined. In this case I believe a country is justifiable to keep such persons and their children in detention in a not too pleasant environment on the grounds that they are illegal migrants until they can give verbal statements from which their true identity can be hopefully verified and thus their future processing can be determined.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 14th February 2018, 19:48
Gotno Gizmo Gotno Gizmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,298
Gotno Gizmo is on a distinguished road
Swedish pro-migration party admits: Costs of migrants are too high and will skyrocket

Sweden’s Moderate Party wants a survey on the costs of immigration as they seem to spiral out of control.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/02/sw...ill-skyrocket/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.