Immigration

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 1,702 comments
  • 65,118 views
Cool let's do it then! :D
Umm. It's you that needs to supply evidence that Socioeconomic factors are not a factor.

Please ensure they are of a suitable standard to those I have provided a link to, so peer reviewed and published in reputable journals.
 
Last edited:
https://www.thelocal.se/20170530/first-results-of-swedens-asylum-age-assessment-tests
Turns out, they aren't kids after all.

Three in four of those asylum seekers subjected to a new method of medically assessing their age by examining their teeth and knee joints have so far been found to be older than 18. The national forensic medicine agency (Rättsmedicinalverket) began to carry out the tests earlier this year.

They are designed to make age assessment during the asylum process more accurate, after the migration authority was criticized for failings in assessing the correct age of some refugees claiming to be underage.

The agency has so far received around 4,200 requests from the Migration Agency and has completed assessments of the ages of a total of 581 people. It is only asked to carry out the tests in cases when the person's age is in question.

The test results in 442 of these 581 cases "suggest that the person examined is 18 years or older", according to Rättsmedicinalverket. Of these, 430 were men and 12 women.
If a country takes you in and the first thing you do as a resident of that new country is lie about your age, presumably to get access to something you would not otherwise have or avoid something you might otherwise be required to do, should you be put on a plane back to where you came from? Quite revealing to see the difference in male and female applicants. I wonder if males outnumber females 43:1? Interesting questions.
 
https://www.thelocal.se/20170530/first-results-of-swedens-asylum-age-assessment-tests
Turns out, they aren't kids after all.

If a country takes you in and the first thing you do as a resident of that new country is lie about your age, presumably to get access to something you would not otherwise have or avoid something you might otherwise be required to do, should you be put on a plane back to where you came from? Quite revealing to see the difference in male and female applicants. I wonder if males outnumber females 43:1? Interesting questions.
You seem to have misread some parts of that.

The 3/4 and 43:1 ratio was of those who were suspected of not being honest about age during the application process, not of all asylum seekers.

As the article itself already points out:

"The Migration Agency stressed the figures did not show that asylum seekers who lie about their age represent the majority of applicants, as the tests are only carried out in cases where it believes existing evidence is not enough.

"If all unaccompanied minors had undergone a medical age evaluation then the results would likely have been different," Daniel Salehi, a manager at the agency, told Swedish newswire TT. He said the result would then have been the opposite, that most unaccompanied children are indeed under the age of 18.

Over 35,000 asylum applications were made by lone refugee children in Sweden during 2015, followed by 2199 in 2016."

Now depending on which country they are from its also not a massive leap to be unsure of your age (and the article doesn't say how much older they were - 19 is quite a bit different from 30 for example), take Afghanistan as an example. Not only has it been in semi-constant conflict since 2002, but prior to that was ruled over by the Taliban, who were fairly lax when it came to detailed administrative control.

As such I would be wary of automatically assuming deliberate deceit in every case (some will of course be just that), nor would I say its grounds to automatically send someone back, process them as an adult yes, but an automatic no because someone might get their age wrong by a year?

My own mother in law doesn't know exactly how old she is, she could be 80, 81 or 82. She was born in India at a time when record keeping was pretty poor. Two records of her birth exist in India (found over the last ten years or so by family going back) which date her as either 80 or 82, yet when she arrived in the UK in 1952 her DOB was recorded to put her at 81.


Sometimes its not quite as black and white as many would like it to be, well unless you want to totally remove the human element from things.
 
You seem to have misread some parts of that.

The 3/4 and 43:1 ratio was of those who were suspected of not being honest about age during the application process, not of all asylum seekers.

As the article itself already points out:

"The Migration Agency stressed the figures did not show that asylum seekers who lie about their age represent the majority of applicants, as the tests are only carried out in cases where it believes existing evidence is not enough.

"If all unaccompanied minors had undergone a medical age evaluation then the results would likely have been different," Daniel Salehi, a manager at the agency, told Swedish newswire TT. He said the result would then have been the opposite, that most unaccompanied children are indeed under the age of 18.

Over 35,000 asylum applications were made by lone refugee children in Sweden during 2015, followed by 2199 in 2016."

Now depending on which country they are from its also not a massive leap to be unsure of your age (and the article doesn't say how much older they were - 19 is quite a bit different from 30 for example), take Afghanistan as an example. Not only has it been in semi-constant conflict since 2002, but prior to that was ruled over by the Taliban, who were fairly lax when it came to detailed administrative control.

As such I would be wary of automatically assuming deliberate deceit in every case (some will of course be just that), nor would I say its grounds to automatically send someone back, process them as an adult yes, but an automatic no because someone might get their age wrong by a year?

My own mother in law doesn't know exactly how old she is, she could be 80, 81 or 82. She was born in India at a time when record keeping was pretty poor. Two records of her birth exist in India (found over the last ten years or so by family going back) which date her as either 80 or 82, yet when she arrived in the UK in 1952 her DOB was recorded to put her at 81.


Sometimes its not quite as black and white as many would like it to be, well unless you want to totally remove the human element from things.
No misread at all, other than on your part that is. I included the limitations of the testing in my response:
It is only asked to carry out the tests in cases when the person's age is in question.
As such, I was clearly talking only about those that were tested and proved to be untruthful. It remains to be seen if it can be proven some of them were deliberately untruthful, but if it is proven, it's a pretty crappy way to start off your new life by deceiving those that took you in.
 
No misread at all, other than on your part that is. I included the limitations of the testing in my response:

As such, I was clearly talking only about those that were tested and proved to be untruthful. It remains to be seen if it can be proven some of them were deliberately untruthful, but if it is proven, it's a pretty crappy way to start off your new life by deceiving those that took you in.
Oh in those circumstances I don't disagree its a bad way to start, but the factors driving it could be many and varied. Plenty of people would do the same if the alternative is going back to a country that may try and kill you.

My bad on the limitation, I missed that, seems us gents are either very poor at knowing how old we are or more willing to lie about it. ;)
 
https://www.rt.com/news/391753-austria-burqa-ban-integration/
Highlights:
A controversial integration law that will fine women for wearing face-concealing Islamic dress from October, and deprive of benefits migrants who fail to take language lessons has officially been enacted, after being rubberstamped by the President. “Those who are not prepared to accept Enlightenment values will have to leave our country and society,” reads the text of the law that drew thousands of protesters to the streets earlier this year, before it was passed by a centrist coalition last month.
More generally, newcomers who expect to stay in Austria, will need to enroll in a 12-month “integration course,” which includes German language lessons, if they are to receive their welfare benefits.They will also be expressly forbidden from distributing incendiary radical materials, and are encouraged to volunteer before they can get their work permits, so that they are better prepared for life in the workplace.
 
State doesn't like women being told how to dress, tells them how to dress.

It's not about dress, it's about culture and integration. And it's nothing new either, France have the same thing from 2010.

Does so by making a practice that the rich can continue anyway. Geeeenius, Austria.

Imagine what will happen when police demand removal of the face cover because it's against the law. Small fine is only symbolic.
 
I suppose the Iranians would say the same thing.
They probably would. Do you support each nation in exercising it's sovereign rights to determine how newcomers are going to be integrated into their society?
 
They probably would. Do you support each nation in exercising it's sovereign rights to determine how newcomers are going to be integrated into their society?
I think there's very little I can do about it either way no matter how much I may disagree.
 
I think there's very little I can do about it either way no matter how much I may disagree.
I didn't ask if you could do anything, I asked whether you agree that both countries have the sovereign right to determine the steps their new citizens must go through as part of their integration into society. But since you mentioned it, which of the two (or both?), do you disagree with and why?
 
I didn't ask if you could do anything, I asked whether you agree that both countries have the sovereign right to determine the steps their new citizens must go through as part of their integration into society. But since you mentioned it, which of the two (or both?), do you disagree with and why?

No, I don't support countries exercising their "sovereign right" to violate the rights of their citizens by creating laws that discriminate against religious apparel for arbitrary reasons. Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in the US.
 
I didn't ask if you could do anything, I asked whether you agree that both countries have the sovereign right to determine the steps their new citizens must go through as part of their integration into society.
Of course they do.

But since you mentioned it, which of the two (or both?), do you disagree with and why?
The situation in Iran sounds a lot worse to me from an absolute standpoint. Whether what Austria is doing is right or wrong though, I think that using "it's our culture" to justify it opens the door for Iran to say the same thing when other nations protest about their oppressive hijab rule.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't support countries exercising their "sovereign right" to violate the rights of their citizens by creating laws that discriminate against religious apparel for arbitrary reasons. Good thing we have a Bill of Rights in the US.
Is that a right for citizens of Austria? Of Iran? Is religious freedom guaranteed in those countries?
 
Umm. It's you that needs to supply evidence that Socioeconomic factors are not a factor.

Please ensure they are of a suitable standard to those I have provided a link to, so peer reviewed and published in reputable journals.
Surely you'd have to provide the evidence that it is in fact "complex socio-economic issues".

It seems these same "complex issues" are apparent in America:

http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/08/islam-prison

Based on data from 2011, Pew Research Center estimated that Muslims made up 9% of the 1,598,780 state and federal prisoners in the United States. Pew also reported that as of 2010, about 0.8% of the U.S. population was Muslim, up from 0.6% in 1990.
An overrepresentation of 11.25 times their percentage of the population

And they seem to be in France too:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/are-70-of-frances-prison-inmates-muslims

A Brookings Institution report says that “Muslims are greatly overrepresented in prisons and within the eighteen- to twenty-four–year-old age group in particular: they make up only 8.5 percent of that age cohort in France, yet 39.9 percent of all prisoners in the cohort.”
 
Surely you'd have to provide the evidence that it is in fact "complex socio-economic issues".

It seems these same "complex issues" are apparent in America:

http://www.meforum.org/blog/2015/08/islam-prison


An overrepresentation of 11.25 times their percentage of the population

And they seem to be in France too:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/are-70-of-frances-prison-inmates-muslims
I have already provided a link to an entire database on it, a shame you didn't use your week off to bother looking at it.

Instead we have you once again using a clearly biased source, which your second source then directly contradicts.

However that's not what is most disturbing about your return post.

That would be the fact that you have once again chosen to focus on one group, a group that isn't uniquely immigrant, and isn't even the largest body of immigrants into the US.

You have made you bias and desire to consistently attack one group, based simply on its religion abundantly clear. A week off did nothing to change that, as such your posts , beliefs and attacks have no place here at GT Planet.
 
Last edited:
Back