Sinking boats in the Mediterranean.

[Scaff]

No

Then its nothing like sending your child into a pool with a shark is it!

Because it didn't prove any point other than the impact of the Syrian war and the inevitable fallout on its neighbours

Data to show that a number of Middle Eastern countries take a huge amount of refugees has no point in a conversation about why Middle Eastern countries should take in refugees?

I think the point it proves is that the idea of sending Muslim refugees to Middle Eastern countries is a bit moot, given that they already take far more of them than any other region.

Oh and if you think its just in relation to the Syrian war then you clearly didn't both to read the report (either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the data it contains).

It's not to do with you, it's a separate part of the post. And it's covered in the Mail and Daily Express too (at least).

And yes, yes the TFL do. Right in the article. And right in the Express article

OK this story is a little odd as it claims that overseas background checks will not be carried out and yet then quotes TfL as saying.....

“Any applicant that has lived in a country other than the UK for more than three months within the last three years is required to produce a certificate of good conduct.

“We recognise this may not be possible if an applicant is granted asylum or refugee status and, where applicable, these applicants will be required to provide a certificate from any other country of residence within the last three years. They will also be required to provide evidence of their certificate of registration or a letter from the Border and Immigration Agency.”


....well a Certificate of Good Conduct/Behavour is an overseas background check.

To quote the British Government...

"The application process for criminal records checks or ‘Certificates of Good Character’ for someone from overseas varies from country to country. "

....https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-records-checks-for-overseas-applicants

The article seems to suggest that an 'overseas background check' and a 'Certificate of Good Conduct' are very different things, which the British Government would disagree with (unless the government source is wrong). Now the issues with overseas background checks for countries which are war torn are reasonably obvious and the caution that should be taken as a result, but that doesn't change the misinformation in this story.

 

[KSaiyu]

Then its nothing like sending your child into a pool with a shark is it!

Well it kind of, you know, is since the pool can have lots of friendly fish. But you have the one or two sharks....

Data to show that a number of Middle Eastern countries take a huge amount of refugees has no point in a conversation about why Middle Eastern countries should take in refugees?

I think the point it proves is that the idea of sending Muslim refugees to Middle Eastern countries is a bit moot, given that they already take far more of them than any other region.

Oh and if you think its just in relation to the Syrian war then you clearly didn't both to read the report (either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the data it contains).

I will re-read the report, but the figure you presented had the two countries most affected by Syria.

OK this story is a little odd as it claims that overseas background checks will not be carried out and yet then quotes TfL as saying.....

“Any applicant that has lived in a country other than the UK for more than three months within the last three years is required to produce a certificate of good conduct.

“We recognise this may not be possible if an applicant is granted asylum or refugee status and, where applicable, these applicants will be required to provide a certificate from any other country of residence within the last three years. They will also be required to provide evidence of their certificate of registration or a letter from the Border and Immigration Agency.”


....well a Certificate of Good Conduct/Behavour is an overseas background check.

To quote the British Government...

"The application process for criminal records checks or ‘Certificates of Good Character’ for someone from overseas varies from country to country. "

....https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-records-checks-for-overseas-applicants

The article seems to suggest that an 'overseas background check' and a 'Certificate of Good Conduct' are very different things, which the British Government would disagree with (unless the government source is wrong). Now the issues with overseas background checks for countries which are war torn are reasonably obvious and the caution that should be taken as a result, but that doesn't change the misinformation in this story.

To be honest it's not the best of stories, because it intentionally covers this bit up showing they still have to produce from another country, so don't evade (bolded):

3.3.11 Asylum seekers

Any applicant who has been granted or is awaiting a decision to be granted asylum/refugee status will not be required to produce a Certificate of Good Conduct from the country he is claiming asylum from.

The applicant will, however, be required to obtain a Certificate of Good Conduct from any other country he has resided within the three years prior to the date of application in line with the guidelines at paragraph 3.3.10.

However it's still not so simple, as 3.3.10 says...

...Where an applicant is unable to provide the above they must explain why and provide references from individuals/bodies who can confirm their conduct for their time in the country (the referee must not be a family member).


The absence of a ‘Certificate of Good Conduct’ or references will not prevent an application from being considered but the failure to do so will be taken into account at the decision making stage.

Each case must be considered on its merits. Particular consideration will be given to assess whether the applicant has demonstrated that they have provided all the available evidence or made every effort to obtain the information.

http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/overseas-and-asylum-seekers-criminal.html

So you can speculate that it's easier to evade than a national born (as they have to produce DBS), but I prefer statistics so perhaps we can look at property crime:




The share of asylum seekers in the local population is related to a 1.1% rise in property crime but no change in violent crime. A rise in A8 migrants as a share of the population is associated with a 0.4% fall in property crime and has no relationship to violent crime

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ion-and-crime-evidence-uk-and-other-countries

---------

All of this is not my main focus however, which is that in 2015 the spread of Islamism throughout the Mid East and Africa is why we should be more reluctant to host asylum seekers from this region unless thoroughly vetted. This is the biggest threat.

 

[Scaff]

Well it kind of, you know, is since the pool can have lots of friendly fish. But you have the one or two sharks....

Its a poor analogy as it both assumes that the shark is going to be present and assumes the shark is from a specific part of the population only.

I will re-read the report, but the figure you presented had the two countries most affected by Syria.

Which its would appear caused you to misread it, assume it was something it was not and then spend days telling me I don't understand English!

To be honest it's not the best of stories, because it intentionally covers this bit up showing they still have to produce from another country, so don't evade (bolded):

3.3.11 Asylum seekers

Any applicant who has been granted or is awaiting a decision to be granted asylum/refugee status will not be required to produce a Certificate of Good Conduct from the country he is claiming asylum from.

The applicant will, however, be required to obtain a Certificate of Good Conduct from any other country he has resided within the three years prior to the date of application in line with the guidelines at paragraph 3.3.10.

However it's still not so simple, as 3.3.10 says...

...Where an applicant is unable to provide the above they must explain why and provide references from individuals/bodies who can confirm their conduct for their time in the country (the referee must not be a family member).


The absence of a ‘Certificate of Good Conduct’ or references will not prevent an application from being considered but the failure to do so will be taken into account at the decision making stage.

Each case must be considered on its merits. Particular consideration will be given to assess whether the applicant has demonstrated that they have provided all the available evidence or made every effort to obtain the information.

http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/overseas-and-asylum-seekers-criminal.html

Yes I know, I was the one who found, read and posted that information (rather than just the heavily misleading and biased news articles) and also pointed out that its a system with risks.

So you can speculate that it's easier to evade than a national born (as they have to produce DBS), but I prefer statistics so perhaps we can look at property crime:

The share of asylum seekers in the local population is related to a 1.1% rise in property crime but no change in violent crime. A rise in A8 migrants as a share of the population is associated with a 0.4% fall in property crime and has no relationship to violent crime

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ion-and-crime-evidence-uk-and-other-countries

Any reason why you chose to exclude the rest of the text from that?

I only ask as the final part is rather important:

"Bell et al. (2013) suggest that the estimated effects for asylum seekers and A8 migrants may be the result of differences in the labour market opportunities of the two groups. The A8 migrants who arrived in the UK came almost entirely for work reasons and have higher employment rates than the UK-born. The motivation of asylum seekers was different, and they are not allowed to work in the UK upon arrival and also have reduced access to welfare benefits. Given the lengthy process involved in deciding asylum applications, this restriction is likely to have increased the relative returns to crime."

Oddly enough poor people who are not allowed to work and have reduced access to benefits are more likely to commit property crime than those who are able to work and have full access to benefits. I wonder why that would be?

All of this is not my main focus however, which is that in 2015 the spread of Islamism throughout the Mid East and Africa is why we should be more reluctant to host asylum seekers from this region unless thoroughly vetted. This is the biggest threat.

Citation for the part in bold, as that's quite clearly a statement of fact (italics for the word 'This' emphasis that).

Its potentially a part of one of the threats to the UK.

 

[KSaiyu]

Its a poor analogy as it both assumes that the shark is going to be present and assumes the shark is from a specific part of the population only.

It encapsulates it - the friendly fish are the majority of asylum seekers. The few sharks are the asylum seekers who pose the threat.

You can argue that this is true with every society (murderers vs normal population for example), but it's a naive way of looking at potential security issues from asylum seekers from the region.

Which its would appear caused you to misread it, assume it was something it was not and then spend days telling me I don't understand English!

But I didn't misread, I argued the figure as presented. You want to use the entire report, which is different. If you meant that in your original post (the entire report, not the figure) then I guess you shouldn't have used that figure and I should have read your post more carefully.

Yes I know, I was the one who found, read and posted that information (rather than just the heavily misleading and biased news articles) and also pointed out that its a system with risks.

Just making sure everyone can see why it's advisable to use Uber in London, or a black taxi. In effect it proves you can't be sure of the criminal background of any migrant driver. Just don't tell the Mail.

Any reason why you chose to exclude the rest of the text from that?

I only ask as the final part is rather important:

"Bell et al. (2013) suggest that the estimated effects for asylum seekers and A8 migrants may be the result of differences in the labour market opportunities of the two groups. The A8 migrants who arrived in the UK came almost entirely for work reasons and have higher employment rates than the UK-born. The motivation of asylum seekers was different, and they are not allowed to work in the UK upon arrival and also have reduced access to welfare benefits. Given the lengthy process involved in deciding asylum applications, this restriction is likely to have increased the relative returns to crime."

Oddly enough poor people who are not allowed to work and have reduced access to benefits are more likely to commit property crime than those who are able to work and have full access to benefits. I wonder why that would be?

I chose to exclude it because it's speculating for a difference (attempting to explain the statistic). Why do I care why my property is being robbed when the clear as day option is to restrict the numbers/heavily vet them before entry? What do you propose - even quicker asylum application and quicker access to benefits?!

Citation for the part in bold, as that's quite clearly a statement of fact (italics for the word 'This' emphasis that).

Its potentially a part of one of the threats to the UK.

You disagree that Islamism isn't the biggest threat posed by asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa....? The region on the brink of collapse from....Islamism. I'll be honest, I'm pretty dumbfounded. I can't think of a bigger one, but if you have any suggestions?

 

[Scaff]

It encapsulates it - the friendly fish are the majority of asylum seekers. The few sharks are the asylum seekers who pose the threat.

You can argue that this is true with every society (murderers vs normal population for example), but it's a naive way of looking at potential security issues from asylum seekers from the region.

It doesn't encapsulate it at all, it still ignores that any other group can pose a risk.

You have yourself posted a source that shows that no link between an increase in violent crime and immigration.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ion-and-crime-evidence-uk-and-other-countries

" Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime."

That's neither immigrants from A8 countries or from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its not a naive way of looking at it, its an accurate was of looking at it.

But I didn't misread, I argued the figure as presented. You want to use the entire report, which is different. If you meant that in your original post (the entire report, not the figure) then I guess you shouldn't have used that figure and I should have read your post more carefully.

I said....

"That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seekers that Europe do:"

....and presented two graphs that clearly support that (both in total numbers and in number per 1,000 population), along with a link to the report. The entire report supports the data in those graphs as they and the entire report cover the global refugee situation.

You said......

"Wait hold on, that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict.."

....which is not even remotely correct, nor supported by either of the graphs I posted or the source document I linked to.

That means you either misread it and posted in error or you deliberately chose to misrepresent the information; you did not argue the figure as presented because the figure doesn't show only data from the Syrian war nor was it presented by me as such (quote me doing so).

To date you have argued that the data represents something it doesn't, told me I don't understand English (in four different and changing ways) and are now accusing me of being misleading in my original post.

Just making sure everyone can see why it's advisable to use Uber in London, or a black taxi. In effect it proves you can't be sure of the criminal background of any migrant driver. Just don't tell the Mail.

And yet even with Uber issues have occurred around the globe, licensed and background checked cabbies who are native have committed violent crimes. All of which fall under the catagory of ensuring one takes resonable care when you travel regardless of who the driver is.

Don't forget "Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime."

I chose to exclude it because it's speculating for a difference (attempting to explain the statistic). Why do I care why my property is being robbed when the clear as day option is to restrict the numbers/heavily vet them before entry? What do you propose - even quicker asylum application and quicker access to benefits?!

Yes, as well as allowing them to work and contribute.

We are legally obligated to accept a number of both refugees and asylum seekers under international law, by treating them as second class all it does it drive the process of producing the ghettos you love to bang on about so much.

Correctly process them, return those with no valid claim and allow the ones who stay to work.

You disagree that Islamism isn't the biggest threat posed by asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa....? The region on the brink of collapse from....Islamism. I'll be honest, I'm pretty dumbfounded. I can't think of a bigger one, but if you have any suggestions?

Yes I do disagree.

First the logical fallacy in your statement above, followers of Islamism are fleeing from Islamism! Really?

Its a massive assumption that every refugees is heading to Europe (and untrue as the very data you seem so confused by shows), its an even bigger assumption that they are all bringing Islamism along with them. You appear to be conflating someone whose religion is Islam with them being an advocate of Islamism. Is every Christian refugee heading our way an advocate of Fundamentalist Christianity?

The biggest threat these people pose to us is how we are to feed, cloth, process and manage them. That we know we have to do for 100% of them. What percentage of them are advocates of Islamism and will use violence to bring it to pass?

 

[F1jocker12]

As part of an agreement he made with Silvio Berlusconi’s government, “Col. Gaddafi had agreed to crack down on the trade in people.” For prior to the dissolution of Libya at the behest of Barack Obama’s Amazon women warriors—Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power—Libya had a navy. Under the same accord with the Berlusconi government (and for a pretty penny), Gadhafi’s admiralty stemmed the tide of migrants into Europe.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton cackled barbarically when she learned of the demise of Col. Gadhafi, but the colonel is having the last laugh.

Interesting article about Gadhafi stopping the smugglers...
The Curse Of Col. Gadhafi

 

[KSaiyu]

It doesn't encapsulate it at all, it still ignores that any other group can pose a risk.

You have yourself posted a source that shows that no link between an increase in violent crime and immigration.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ion-and-crime-evidence-uk-and-other-countries

" Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime."

That's neither immigrants from A8 countries or from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its not a naive way of looking at it, its an accurate was of looking at it.

Ah Gahd! That's why I didn't use the migrant statistics! Do I have to explain everything?! There is a difference between causality and correlation! What does that have to do with anything?!

I said....

"That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seekers that Europe do:"

....and presented two graphs that clearly support that (both in total numbers and in number per 1,000 population), along with a link to the report. The entire report supports the data in those graphs as they and the entire report cover the global refugee situation.

You said......

"Wait hold on, that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict.."

....which is not even remotely correct, nor supported by either of the graphs I posted or the source document I linked to.

That means you either misread it and posted in error or you deliberately chose to misrepresent the information; you did not argue the figure as presented because the figure doesn't show only data from the Syrian war nor was it presented by me as such (quote me doing so).

OK for the final time, what is Figure 4 showing.... Remember I said "that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict"

Map 1 (which says "see also Figure 3") is something different entirely. If you want to address that, and the report, then just ask. It is completely different.

To date you have argued that the data represents something it doesn't, told me I don't understand English (in four different and changing ways) and are now accusing me of being misleading in my original post.

Because it's confusion blown out of proportion, and I don't understand how you can't see it still??

I don't think you were misleading on purpose, but as you can see the post comes across confusing when you break it down.

And yet even with Uber issues have occurred around the globe, licensed and background checked cabbies who are native have committed violent crimes. All of which fall under the catagory of ensuring one takes resonable care when you travel regardless of who the driver is.

What has that got to do with anything?!

Fact: If you are native you HAVE to have an enhanced DBS. We've seen migrant drivers could be driving without all criminal checks
Fact: Sexual assaults are a problem in the capital, and it is NOTORIOUSLY hard to get FOI requests granted to investigate the numbers now.
Fact: Sexual assault by taxi drivers and Uber drivers hit the headlines. You have less chance of harassment with an Uber driver at the moment only by virtue of it taking more effort to sign up with the company, and the rating system). The checks are still inadequate and work needs to be done to emulate the USA model more.

Basically it's a problem at TFL's end. Cab driving is "migrant labour" (that's not a slur, I work in a "migrant job"). As such it's hard to regulate, especially with the borders being so open.

Yes, as well as allowing them to work and contribute.

We are legally obligated to accept a number of both refugees and asylum seekers under international law, by treating them as second class all it does it drive the process of producing the ghettos you love to bang on about so much.

Correctly process them, return those with no valid claim and allow the ones who stay to work.

No, this is not our fault. See our discussions about the relevant contributions of the Hindus, Sikhs, Africans, Afro Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. All subject to discrimination. All starting in ghettos with limited opportunities. The fault is not with us, though it is exacerbated. And frankly I don't want to do a social experiment during these dangerous times. Let's concentrate on helping the migrants who haven't integrated yet first. You know, like sorting out the mess left behind by the first "democratically" elected Asian mayor

"Lutfur Rahman played the Islamophobia card to silence his critics. And too many on the left fell for it"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-of-verbal-attacks-and-threats-10199949.html

Yes I do disagree.

First the logical fallacy in your statement above, followers of Islamism are fleeing from Islamism! Really?

That's not a logical fallacy. These are individuals fleeing a region of advancing Islamism. You can't guarantee which are Islamists, and which aren't. Likewise you can't guarantee who will sympathise with Islamism. Just like you can't guarantee who thought chucking Christians off a boat when religious differences came to a head was a great idea.

Its a massive assumption that every refugees is heading to Europe (and untrue as the very data you seem so confused by shows), its an even bigger assumption that they are all bringing Islamism along with them. You appear to be conflating someone whose religion is Islam with them being an advocate of Islamism. Is every Christian refugee heading our way an advocate of Fundamentalist Christianity?

I don't assume every. Again, I'd suggest looking at the history of Lebanon before the civil war.

The biggest threat these people pose to us is how we are to feed, cloth, process and manage them. That we know we have to do for 100% of them. What percentage of them are advocates of Islamism and will use violence to bring it to pass?

So you kill 2 birds with one stone by lobbying the gulf states to take more than their fair share to catch up to our generosity for decades.

Simples.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

By that logic, Europe will end up taking more refugees. I'm astounded that the way the Middle Eastern states cannot handle the volume of refugees has passed you by. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey are all struggling. Iraq obviously has problems with ISIL, which makes fleeing to Iran nigh on impossible. Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain are all too small to accommodate any significant volume of refugees. Yemen is wracked by instability, and the Saudis will be cautious of any refugees given their involvement in Yemen. And getting to Egypt means crossing Israel, which won't be easy, and they are just coming out of a period of religious instability of their own.

The system is already overloaded. Your solution to this problem is to deny anyone entry to Europe and instead burden the Middle East with more refugees using a five year-old's logic of "it's only fair to share!".

 

[Barra333]

I will confess to not reading the massive multiquote discussion that has gone on here, but it seems that it started with some figures about who is hosting the most refugees, with countries like Jordan, Turkey etc at the top of the list. This is solely due to proximity, especially given that people from those countries are also seeking asylum elsewhere.

As for Western countries accepting refugees (US/Canada/Australia/Europe), there is no simple answer, but most of them need to do more*. Australia has some pretty human rights unfriendly policies on refugees, but are happy to hand out work permits to folks from less developed, but fundamentally safe countries. I will be a shock to some, but most refugees want to work hard, they don't want to survive on handouts (give them a hand up, not a hand out).

The EU was formed for European countries to deal with things together (for better or worse), but it seems that when push comes to shove, some are more equal than others. Italy and Greece are bearing the burden for the most recent crisis, when the rest of the EU (most of them in a better financial situation than Italy and Greece) should be stepping up. I was shocked to see the British PM on TV the other day saying that they will help the situation by supplying a navy ship, on the condition that they dump anyone they rescue in Italy. Way to go

@prisonermonkeys - how much of the sinking boats stuff from the last week or so got headlines in newspapers/TV? Because I found it buried on news websites behind irrelevant 'human interest' stories. More people died trying to reach Europe in the last week than have probably died trying to reach Australia in the last year, but the Australian government probably want to make Australia look 'under attack'.

*I don't know what, exactly

 

[Scaff]

Ah Gahd! That's why I didn't use the migrant statistics! Do I have to explain everything?! There is a difference between causality and correlation! What does that have to do with anything?!

So the source is fine when you use it, but its flawed when anyone else uses it?

Oh and cut the attitude, your now treading a very fine line.

OK for the final time, what is Figure 4 showing.... Remember I said "that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict"

Map 1 (which says "see also Figure 3") is something different entirely. If you want to address that, and the report, then just ask. It is completely different.

Yes I do remember you saying "that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict" and that statement still remains incorrect. Its doesn't just show that, never has and never will. I have asked you to state on which page of the report it states that, unsurprisingly you are not able to.

Oh and if you have read the report you will know that all Fig3 does is put the numbers from the map in the form of a bar graph....

....all Fig 4 then does is look at that same data in terms of a number per 1,000 population.

Because it's confusion blown out of proportion, and I don't understand how you can't see it still??

I don't think you were misleading on purpose, but as you can see the post comes across confusing when you break it down.

I was misleading?

I never presented the data as anything other than what it was, you are the one that attempted to present some of it as "just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict", that was you.

Any confusion here is simply down to you misreading the data and then going on a massively odd path that first attempted to prove is was just Syrian data, then four ways I don't understand the English language and now I was the one being misleading?

I said "That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seekers that Europe do:", the data on the map and graph posted supports that, as does the entire report I linked to. Nothing at all about that is misleading.

What has that got to do with anything?!

Fact: If you are native you HAVE to have an enhanced DBS. We've seen migrant drivers could be driving without all criminal checks
Fact: Sexual assaults are a problem in the capital, and it is NOTORIOUSLY hard to get FOI requests granted to investigate the numbers now.
Fact: Sexual assault by taxi drivers and Uber drivers hit the headlines. You have less chance of harassment with an Uber driver at the moment only by virtue of it taking more effort to sign up with the company, and the rating system). The checks are still inadequate and work needs to be done to emulate the USA model more.

Basically it's a problem at TFL's end. Cab driving is "migrant labour" (that's not a slur, I work in a "migrant job"). As such it's hard to regulate, especially with the borders being so open.

That violent crimes are also committed by cab drivers who have been checked, you seems to be under the impression that you can prove a point by simply using anecdotal evidence and no data, yet seem to be getting rather hot under the collor when the same is done to counter you point.

No, this is not our fault. See our discussions about the relevant contributions of the Hindus, Sikhs, Africans, Afro Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. All subject to discrimination. All starting in ghettos with limited opportunities. The fault is not with us, though it is exacerbated. And frankly I don't want to do a social experiment during these dangerous times. Let's concentrate on helping the migrants who haven't integrated yet first. You know, like sorting out the mess left behind by the first "democratically" elected Asian mayor

"Lutfur Rahman played the Islamophobia card to silence his critics. And too many on the left fell for it"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-of-verbal-attacks-and-threats-10199949.html

Quote me saying its our fault?

That's not a logical fallacy. These are individuals fleeing a region of advancing Islamism. You can't guarantee which are Islamists, and which aren't. Likewise you can't guarantee who will sympathise with Islamism.

I'm not the one making that assumption however, you are. Now are you able to back it up with anything more than "because I say so"?

Or are you secretly Nige?

Just like you can't guarantee who thought chucking Christians off a boat when religious differences came to a head was a great idea.

Are you citing the outcome of criminal cases that haven't finished yet as if they had (again)?

I don't assume every. Again, I'd suggest looking at the history of Lebanon before the civil war.

You make numerous and repeated assumptions. I'm also well enough aware of the history of Lebanon to know that you are now suggesting that the refugees in question are on par with the Palestinian militants who relocated to Lebanon when they were defeated by Jordan! I take it that you are able to substantiate that inference.

So you kill 2 birds with one stone by lobbying the gulf states to take more than their fair share to catch up to our generosity for decades.


Simples.

How about now you actually answer the question I asked, rather than one you made up.

 

[KSaiyu]

So the source is fine when you use it, but its flawed when anyone else uses it?

Oh and cut the attitude, your now treading a very fine line.

I'm sorry but what? We were discussing asylum seekers, not migrants. You want to bring up migrants, using my source then fine. But what is the relevance?

Yes I do remember you saying "that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict" and that statement still remains incorrect. Its doesn't just show that, never has and never will. I have asked you to state on which page of the report it states that, unsurprisingly you are not able to.

Oh and if you have read the report you will know that all Fig3 does is put the numbers from the map in the form of a bar graph....

View attachment 356332

....all Fig 4 then does is look at that same data in terms of a number per 1,000 population.



I was misleading?

I never presented the data as anything other than what it was, you are the one that attempted to present some of it as "just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict", that was you.

Any confusion here is simply down to you misreading the data and then going on a massively odd path that first attempted to prove is was just Syrian data, then four ways I don't understand the English language and now I was the one being misleading?

I said "That would be the Middle East countries that already host more asylum seekers that Europe do:", the data on the map and graph posted supports that, as does the entire report I linked to. Nothing at all about that is misleading.

I'm sorry but this is flat out incorrect. I called out the figure for what it is - skewed massively from the Syrian conflict. Part of medical training involves interpreting statistics, and I've seen consultants shred years of research with a few sentences. I'm not saying I have that interpretation level but I will say that in my opinion:

- Figure 3 doesn't support your view that Middle Eastern countries are already hosting more than their fair share of asylum seekers in comparison to Europe. It is merely showing the population spillage from the Syrian conflict.
- The map you quoted does support your claim to an extent, but needs further scrutiny.

You'll remember that your post was a reply to mine saying that we should send them to Middle East countries. I never mentioned those two specific countries, and you used that figure to prove that the Middle East already hosts more than Europe.

That violent crimes are also committed by cab drivers who have been checked, you seems to be under the impression that you can prove a point by simply using anecdotal evidence and no data, yet seem to be getting rather hot under the collor when the same is done to counter you point.

Because I don't understand what you are trying to prove? That it is equally as unsafe in all the three modes of private hire? It's a ridiculous argument...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/despi...l-the-safest-way-to-order-a-taxi-2014-12?r=US

Quote me saying its our fault?

Err...
"by treating them as second class all it does it drive the process of producing the ghettos you love to bang on about so much."

But I'll go ahead and ask a direct question before I address your other points (to cut down the post length):

What is holding back the largest refugee population (Somalians) if it is not "our fault"?

What explains Bangladeshi and Somalian representation in this figure:

Actually I'll answer your direct question first.

The biggest threat these people pose to us is how we are to feed, cloth, process and manage them. That we know we have to do for 100% of them.

No it isn't. That's a problem. That isn't a threat.

By that logic, Europe will end up taking more refugees. I'm astounded that the way the Middle Eastern states cannot handle the volume of refugees has passed you by. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey are all struggling. Iraq obviously has problems with ISIL, which makes fleeing to Iran nigh on impossible. Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain are all too small to accommodate any significant volume of refugees. Yemen is wracked by instability, and the Saudis will be cautious of any refugees given their involvement in Yemen. And getting to Egypt means crossing Israel, which won't be easy, and they are just coming out of a period of religious instability of their own.

The system is already overloaded. Your solution to this problem is to deny anyone entry to Europe and instead burden the Middle East with more refugees using a five year-old's logic of "it's only fair to share!".

Only Bahrain has a higher population density than the UK out of those.

 

[Barra333]

Only Bahrain has a higher population density than the UK out of those.

That is hardly an argument. Have you seen the landscape in those countries? Desert, sand dunes and more desert. Not exactly habitable, even if the infrastructure was there. On the other hand, most of the UK is habitable.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Only Bahrain has a higher population density than the UK out of those.

That's not the point. The Middle East is struggling to cope with the current demands placed upon it by its refugee intake. The infrastructure itself is under serious strain, and it is likely that the states in question won't be able to cope with the current rate of intake for much longer.

And your solution is to dump tens of thousands - if not millions - more refugees into a system that cannot cope? How does that solve anything? And you want to do it because you think that the Middle East should take their "fair share". All your plan does is give way to an increase in anti-European sentiment, which will only fuel an increase in extremism. But I suppose you will be happy, so long as you don't have to love next to them - and if it brings about an increase in extremism, then that just makes it easier for you to sleep better at night because you won't have to feel guilty about your blatant racism.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's not the point. The Middle East is struggling to cope with the current demands placed upon it by its refugee intake. The infrastructure itself is under serious strain, and it is likely that the states in question won't be able to cope with the current rate of intake for much longer.

And your solution is to dump tens of thousands - if not millions - more refugees into a system that cannot cope? How does that solve anything? And you want to do it because you think that the Middle East should take their "fair share". All your plan does is give way to an increase in anti-European sentiment, which will only fuel an increase in extremism. But I suppose you will be happy, so long as you don't have to love next to them - and if it brings about an increase in extremism, then that just makes it easier for you to sleep better at night because you won't have to feel guilty about your blatant racism.

It is struggling to cope with a situation of its own making. You are again missing the fact that the states you mentioned haven't taken in their fair share, despite having a lower population density and more wealth than us. You are using examples of overloaded countries to prove a very wrong point.

There is a reason sane people are wary of socialism and you are proving why admirably.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You are again missing the fact that the states you mentioned haven't taken in their fair share

I am not missing that fact. I am just noting that if the Middle East was made to take their "fair share" of refugees, then they would be unable to cope with the influx and would almost immediately fail.

I also suspect that if you took this idea of "taking your fair share" of refugees and applied it globally, then given the trends in refugees worldwide, Britain would be required to take considerably more refugees than they currently do.

I'm curious to know what your idea of "the Middle East should take its fair share of refugees" would look like. I strongly suspect that it will look like "the Middle East must take all refugees".

You are using examples of overloaded countries to prove a very wrong point.

How exactly is "an overloaded system cannot take any more input" a wrong point?

 

[KSaiyu]

Why would it fail? It would be their "fair share". I'm not expecting Kuwait or the UAE to take all the asylum seekers out of Lebanon. I'm looking for a fair share, not what they do currently. And, you know, to treat them nicely so you don't scare them off again

Maybe then we can talk about redistributing displaced persons to other African states, with the backup of gulf money.

And then maybe we can talk about letting more in from the region to Europe.

Then maybe you can let them in to Australia.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sorry but what? We were discussing asylum seekers, not migrants. You want to bring up migrants, using my source then fine. But what is the relevance?

Its looks at both migrants from A8 countries and refugees/asylum seakers from other countries, so yes it does cover both.

You also seem to have forgotten that you used exactly the same section of the report in this post when discussing refugees/asylum seekers, so as I said its a bit odd that you seem to think its valid data wen you use it, but invalid data when I use it.

I'm sorry but this is flat out incorrect. I called out the figure for what it is - skewed massively from the Syrian conflict. Part of medical training involves interpreting statistics, and I've seen consultants shred years of research with a few sentences. I'm not saying I have that interpretation level but I will say that in my opinion:

So now your quite happy to lie about what you said?

I must say that's rather bold, you said "that figure is just showing the fallout from the Syrian conflict" ".

Not skewed, just was the word you used, that it just showed data from the Syrian conflict. Its not vague at all, its quite clear what you said and nonsense about how I don't understand the English language doesn't change that fact or that you initially tried to argue that is was just data from the Syrian conflict.

- Figure 3 doesn't support your view that Middle Eastern countries are already hosting more than their fair share of asylum seekers in comparison to Europe.

Good job I never said that then isn't it. I said that Middle Eastern countries are hosting more refugees that Europe, and supported that with data on both total numbers and per 1,000 population.

However you seem to now think its acceptable to insert your own wording and attempt to pass it off as mine, its not acceptable at all.

It is merely showing the population spillage from the Syrian conflict.
- The map you quoted does support your claim to an extent, but needs further scrutiny.

No it shows total refugees numbers, every part of the report confirms that, and that you are unable to cite any part of the document that says otherwise is quite telling. Oh and the data on Fig 3, its the same data as on the map, so its not possible for one to support my claim and the other to not. That's without looking at the raw data at the back of the report that validates all of this.

You'll remember that your post was a reply to mine saying that we should send them to Middle East countries. I never mentioned those two specific countries, and you used that figure to prove that the Middle East already hosts more than Europe.

I didn't say you did (once again please quote me as saying so), I made a quite clear and open post that Middle Eastern countries host more refugees than Europe do, the report supports that statement 100%.

Because I don't understand what you are trying to prove? That it is equally as unsafe in all the three modes of private hire? It's a ridiculous argument...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/despi...l-the-safest-way-to-order-a-taxi-2014-12?r=US

The point is that potentially any cab journey is a risk and its both up to the individual to manage that risk and up to the cab companies to work to ensure that the risk to customers is minimized. However the article (and I assume yourself given that you used it as a source) have only shown that a known weakness exists in the background checks for people from certain areas of the world (this is not exactly new news) and translated that into a risk that you have not been able to then substantiate with any supporting data.

Err...
"by treating them as second class all it does it drive the process of producing the ghettos you love to bang on about so much."

But I'll go ahead and ask a direct question before I address your other points (to cut down the post length):

What is holding back the largest refugee population (Somalians) if it is not "our fault"?

Actually I'll answer your direct question first.

So you actually think that's me saying it our fault do you?

The mind boggles if you honestly think its that simple.

No it isn't. That's a problem. That isn't a threat.

Great so now you are telling me what my opinion is, brilliant.

It is in my view (which you don't get to tell me) the biggest threat that refugees from this part of the world pose to Europe. Its a financial and organisational threat.

There is a reason sane people are wary of socialism and you are proving why admirably.

Thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks now!

So in the space of a fairly short period of time you have mis-quoted me twice (an AUP offence) and attacked the member rather than the argument they are making (an AUP offence).

The leeway you have been given has been very, very broad but enough is enough. You get a ten point warning and a two day temp ban.

When you return it will be on last chance status and in future when you post make sure you quote people using the words they use, not what you want them to say to make it fit your point and argue the point not the person.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why would it fail?

Really? I just told you that. Under the current model, the Middle Eastern states cannot cope with their influx of refugees. They don't have the infrastructure, and it's not so simple as building more because it will place a significant strain on the economies over the medium to long term.

Now, I am assuming that you expect the Middle Eastern states to take more refugees when you say that they should take their fair share. But how do you expect them to cope with more refugees when they cannot handle their current intake.

Thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks now!

I am disappointed, given his frequent complaints about ad hominem attacks directed at him.

 

[Barra333]

Why would it fail? It would be their "fair share". I'm not expecting Kuwait or the UAE to take all the asylum seekers out of Lebanon. I'm looking for a fair share, not what they do currently. And, you know, to treat them nicely so you don't scare them off again

Maybe then we can talk about redistributing displaced persons to other African states, with the backup of gulf money.

And then maybe we can talk about letting more in from the region to Europe.

Then maybe you can let them in to Australia.

I see you are banned, but you will probably read it anyway, so I will reply.

Just because they have money, it doesn't mean the gulf states have the facilities or suitable space to put more refugees. If you are talking about taking a fair share, then the UK (and most of Europe) need to accept significantly more refugees.
Since you also mention Australia, yes, they/we need to accept a lot more too. But that won't happen any time soon with the xenophobic government and hive mind of large parts of the population.

 

[F1jocker12]

The European Union has drawn up plans for military attacks in Libya to try to curb the influx of migrants across the Mediterranean by targeting the trafficking networks. It is to launch a bid on Monday (May 11th 2015) to secure a UN mandate for armed action in Libya’s territorial waters.

Britain is drafting the UN security council resolution that would authorise the mission, said senior officials in Brussels. It would come under Italian command, have the participation of around 10 EU countries, including Britain, France, Spain, and Italy, and could also drag in Nato although there are no plans for initial alliance involvement.

This would entail having EU vessels in Libyan territorial waters, including the Royal Navy flagship HMS Bulwark – currently in Malta – and deploying helicopter gunships to “neutralise” identified traffickers’ ships used to send tens of thousands of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East on the short but highly risky voyage from the Libyan coast to the shores of southern Italy.

Attacks on EU vessels and aircraft could trigger an escalation and force Nato to get involved, said policymakers in Brussels.

The article explains how EU wants to deal with the relocation of the refugees

Brussels is proposing to invoke “emergency mechanisms” by the end of the month obliging the 28 countries to share the numbers of “persons in clear need of international protection and “to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all member states to this common effort. This step will be the precursor of a lasting solution.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...cks-on-targets-in-libya-to-stop-migrant-boats

 

[KSaiyu]

Britain faces defeat in the EU vote over proposals to force the country to receive tens of thousands of refugees to redistribute asylum seekers evenly across Europe.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, is putting forward legislation for a mandatory migrant quota system.

For the first time, the system will share responsibility for “mass influxes” of non-EU migrants among the 28 member states during times of “emergency”, as decided by the commission.

Under the plan, the number of people seeking asylum in Britain could more than double from about 30,000 to above 60,000 as the government is forced to accept refugees crossing the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy and Greece

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4437119.ece

 

[Carbonox]

You see, this is where it goes over the line - when countries are forced into taking in much larger numbers of refugees than normal with no guarantee of them returning home anytime soon - if ever.

 

[Dotini]

You see, this is where it goes over the line - when countries are forced into taking in much larger numbers of refugees than normal with no guarantee of them returning home anytime soon - if ever.

I respectfully disagree. It's only fair that the countries whose policies and actions caused the problem carry the responsibilities and consequences of failure.

 

[Dennisch]

I respectfully disagree. It's only fair that the countries whose policies and actions caused the problem carry the responsibilities and consequences of failure.

So, most of the Middle Eastern refugees can be shipped to the USA!

Excellent!

 

[Dotini]

So, most of the Middle Eastern refugees can be shipped to the USA!

Excellent!

I suppose it might, if they could get there.

Too bad, but they're right next door to you. It's a harsh lesson, but a good one.

 

[Dennisch]

I suppose it might, if they could get there.

Too bad, but they're right next door to you. It's a harsh lesson, but a good one.

He, us Dutchies are master ship builders.

 

[Carbonox]

I respectfully disagree. It's only fair that the countries whose policies and actions caused the problem carry the responsibilities and consequences of failure.

1) I see no fairness of any sort when countries are being forced into it without consent.
2) So all EU countries are now responsible? I didn't know that.

 

[Dotini]

1) I see no fairness of any sort when countries are being forced into it without consent.
2) So all EU countries are now responsible? I didn't know that.

1) Mass migration of refugees from a nearby conflict region is not subject to anybody's consent, least of all the guilty parties.
2) What part of the U in EU don't you understand?

 

[KSaiyu]

I respectfully disagree. It's only fair that the countries whose policies and actions caused the problem carry the responsibilities and consequences of failure.

The unfortunate truth is these problems would have occurred regardless of "our" intervention. The region has never evolved from a tribal culture.

 

[Dotini]

The unfortunate truth is these problems would have occurred regardless of "our" intervention. The region has never evolved from a tribal culture.

What "might have been" (the saddest words ever penned) cannot be disentangled from the fact our interventions. At the Crusades, we were motivated by the spread of the true faith, more lately it has been mineral interests and the spread of neoliberal nostrums that have motivated our interventions. Though the Middle East has evolved from tribal cultures, when chaos and war erupt, and organized government breaks down, family (i.e., tribal) connections are often all that is left. I suspect the same would largely be true in Europe should catastrophe strike. However, as you say, in the Middle East, the tribal militia is a bedrock institution