And as I showed, that's not exactly true. According to UNHCR, in 2015, about half of the migrants that arrived from the Mediterranean, were Syrians.
Also, you asked why don't they go to Iraq? Like, who doesn't go to Iraq? Iraqis? It'd be pointless to ask if Iraqis go to Iraq, as by definition, they live in Iraq
So apparently your question is relevant only in regard of the Syrians.
As I showed, there are more than 200k Syrians in Iraq, and 4 million more in other surrounding countries, as well as 7 million IDPs.
You'd do well to explain how Iraq can be expected to host those 11 million people?
I also wonder why you think that Iraq, a country invaded by the US and its allies (including some European countries), is more expectable to take care of refugees than Europe?
Did you forget what ISIS stands for? Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
And as I said, 4 million Syrians are in the surrounding countries, yes. In fact, in general refugees always flee to a surroundign country, usually. F.e most afghans fled to Iran and Pakistan.
So, instead of spouting stereotypes, it's time to look at reliable statistics. Only a small percent of the refugees come to Europe, and to say that countries like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Turkey are safe- that shows you don't know the circumstances there, or you just don't care.
First of all, I guess they expect their rights to be observed. They have the right for a fair process to get their case examined.
And I guess you have the right to puke, just like they have the right to complain.
Originally we were discussing food, all I said is I understand why they'd refuse it- as for bus and a car, that's another question.
I never disagreed that they should be grateful, I specifically made this clear earlier. But you are focusing only on teh bad apples, while I saw many pictures with them saying thanks to Europeans, and I also saw and read stories where they rightfully complain about their treatment.
You don't seem too grateful either when you complain in threads about not being able to do whatever you want and that you have to work instead of just traveling the world...
It's funny though how you are always riding each other's D.
(as it's obvious they are not in the need of asylum). You implied that she is ignorant and went on to talk about how many syrians there are in the Middle-Eastern countries as refugees.
She asked why don't they go to Iraq. I told her that they actually go to Iraq, as there are 200000 of Syrian refugees in Iraq, and another 4 million in the surrounding countries, so only a small percent of them come to Europe. She was indeed ignorant to this fact.
Dafuq has that got to do with Iraqis in Finland?
You must be registered for see images
I didn't know this is a thread on Iraqis in Finland, excuse me.
You'd also do well to decide whether this is a thread on migration, or a thread where you can show the bad apples to demonize all [muslim] (im)migrants.
Like, what does an uzbek woman beheading a child in Moscow have to do with Iraqis in Finland? :yeah: Is the urge to post something negative about muslims that irresistible that you had to double post for that to revive the thread?
To which I replied that most of the asylum seekers here are Iraqis, not Syrian.
Aaaandddd???? You think only Syrians can be eligible for refugee status? Don't be that ignorant.
Also, while most migrants/asylum seekers may be Iraqis in Finland, I showed that altogether only 8% of the migrants/asylum seekers are Iraqi, and their recognition rate in the EU is close to 90%. I'll post the link again, maybe it'll sink in this time, but I understand it's hard to accept statistics when they don't fit your agenda.
You must be registered for see links
And the northern and southern parts of Iraq have been declared as safe for Iraqis by our goverment. So if Isis is present at the middle parts of Iraq why aren't they going in the other parts?
You must be registered for see links
1) That article is not from your government.
2) You are also ignoring the fact that there are 200000+ Syrians that indeed went to 'those other parts', but please tell me how do you expect Iraq to take care of millions of refugees?
3) A country third of which is occupied by a terror organization, even if the rest is not directly threatened, well, that's not a safe country. At least not by EU standards. Maybe in your layman head.
But the EU doesn't even recognize Serbia as a 'safe third country'.
"...Thus the current Serbian asylum system is not sufficiently functional and is neither unable to ensure the proper determination of international protection needs for an increasing number of asylum seekers, nor does it provide effective protection for those qualifying for refugee status.
The above being a pre-condition for considering a country as safe third country, Serbia cannot be regarded as such.
Hungarian asylum authorities wrongly consider Serbia as a safe third country in their daily practice and wrongly exclude asylum seekers arriving in Hungary through Serbia from an in-merit determination of their protection needs.
Hungary’s practice of applying the safe third country concept for Serbia is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."
You must be registered for see links
If Serbia is not a safe third country, then please tell me how Iraq is. Your government can cry all it wants, just like my government, and you can cry along with them, but saying that these countries are safe, is a violation of international law.
Other than that, many asylum seekers have returned to their homes on their own, so you should be glad about it. If they refuse food, you should rejoice, as they'll starve to death so you don't have to worry about them islamizing your country.
Actually your point that most of the Syrians are in the surrounding countires (Lebanon, Jordan etc.) goes against your own point because it shows that those who are in need of an asylum accept the nearest safe haven. Most of those who risk their lives to go further have done so for economic reasons.
Not really. There are 7 million IDPs within Syria, and as the civil war rages on, more and more of these IDPs have to leave the borders of Syria. As countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are full, they'll naturally go further to Europe.
Also, just because they are given a tent in the middle of the desert, it doesn't mean they are safe there, or that the state they are in, can grant them actual protection. The problem is that you laymen think that 'safe' means that noone holds a gun at your head. But that's not what it means.
2) So? Dafuq has this has to do with anything? Finland is actually paying these flights. Most of those who are returned have actually chosen to not pay for their flight. Because they have that option. It costs us about 1000 euros per person and millions in total. So again bad for us, good for them.
But according to that article, it's often the migrants themselves who sell their last possession to go home. I also wonder how can your government pay for the flights of those who disappear...like, you transport ghosts or what.
In any case, I'd be glad to see a source.
So this doesn't ring any bells? Yes it's true that Finland didn't reject every one of the 20 000 applications because like you pointed out many left on their own. Lol. So I guess they weren't in dire need of a safe haven after all? If they truly would have needed one, they would have stayed and not worried about long processing times.
Yet, again, the recognition rate of Iraqi refugees in Europe is close to 90%.
The problem is :
" In late November, the number passed 30,000, nearly ten-fold increase compared to the previous year.[145] More than 60% of asylum seekers who arrived during 2015 came from Iraq."
You must be registered for see links
That's about 18-20000 migrants. 70% of which returned home. (I'll post the link again:
You must be registered for see links
)
That's 14000 people at most. So you are focusing on these 14000, asking me why am I focusing on the 3-400000 Syrians (only in 2015!) 98% of whom get the refugee status, or the other ~60000 Iraqis 88% of whom are recognized as refugees, according to EU stats.
So, I still don't see what you are arguing for here. I never disagreed that those who are not eligible for refugee status, shouldn't be granted that status..No shi*t Sherlock. If you are not eligible for something, you won't get it. Very simple. I don't think there is a disagreement on that.
But anyone saying that Iraq is a safe country and why don't the refugees go there, is ignorant, and I don't want to repeat for the 3rd time why.
"Refugees" boarding a return flight in Finland to Iraq
You posting these emotionally charging pictures is a typical sign of someone following an agenda here. I could post pictures of children crying and such, but there is no point an a picture war.
3) You fail to account two simple things: most of the refugees are young male and and most of them lie about their age to avoid deportation. In Denmark a study found that 3/4 of the refugees claiming to be adults were actually minors.
You must be registered for see links
In Norway the numbers are 9/10 then who are over 18 and claim to be under 18:
You must be registered for see links
First of all, who conducted these 'studies'? That's not specified in those articles.
Secondly, I don't have to account for it. Nowhere it is said that only children are eligible for protection. And it's quite obvious they lie about their age because they are afraid of getting deported.
Also they have fake id's and they lie about their origins and claim to be Syrian. In Germany the number for those faking their identity is 30%. This again goes to prove that if you have to result in lying about your identity you are conceding to the fact that your true origins might not get you an asylum:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
I wonder, though, what makes you think I haven't heard about that, or that I can't account for that?
First of all, even if 30% of those who claim to be Syrians, are in fact lying, that still means that hundreds of thousands of them are refugees.
Also, your articles say that forging passports is mostly proliferating in Turkey. I wonder, though, who the hell would ask for a passsport to be forged apart from Turkish people, Syrians, Iraqis, or the Pakistani and Afghani migrants that pass through Turkey. Now, it's very easy to sort out those who are not Syrians: just ask them questions in arabic, with a syrian dialect. Turkish, Pakistani, Afghani migrants can be sorted out most certainly that way.
Thirdly, having documents is not a requirement to apply for asylum. However, I don't want to be that naive, obviously someone using a fake passport, does raise suspicion- and I never said that these people should be allowed to roam free. So I'm not arguing for -and never did- accepting everyone- but these things should be examined in a fair process. Now, when a country like mine, builds a fence and admittedly doesn't want any migrant here, that means this country doesn't give two sh*ts about its international obligations or the rights of refugees. As I said, if someone is just an economic migrant- go send him back, I don't have a problem with it. The problem is you're demonizing all of them based on montaged videos from biased sources, and you are implying that most of these people are not refugees but economic migrants- but this should be decided in a fair legal process, not based on your assumptions or suspicions. When in fact, again, even if 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars, that still leaves us with 70% of them who are indeed Syrians- hundreds of thousands of people. And you are asking me why am I focusing on them? Why are you focusing on those who leave your country? They have left, rejoice. But don't ignore those who really need help. The fact that you have a problem with most of them being male, shows that either you are sexist, or you never looked at the history of migration. In 2001, 75% of Colombian refugees in Costa Rica were men. Later the trend has changed, though. Which means that the first swarm of refugees is usually male, while later the females join them.
You must be registered for see links
In 2011, only 47% the refugees from all over the world were female.
You must be registered for see links
So do those numbers of yours really matter when the reality is that most of the refugees lie about their origins, have fake id's, don't have id's at all etc. The goverments are powerless in this situation and thus the high recognition rates as they have no other choice other than to change international laws that are binding them. That's why this is a huge problem! And this is what happens:
"
German government admits it cannot account for 600,000 of its 1.1million asylum seekers – and many could be using multiple identities to travel across Europe"
You must be registered for see links
Again, to be eligible for refugee status, you are not required to have documents when you enter the country. Now people lying about their documents raises some suspicion, but as I said, it's not that hard, or at least it shouldn't be that hard, to get an arabic interpreter and decide if the person is from Syria or not- or an interpreter who speaks urdu and farsi/pashtu, to decide if the person is afghan or pakistani..etc. But again, not only Syrians are eligible for refugee status. The recognition rate for Iraqis, again, is close to 90%, it's 70% for Afghans, and close to 90% in case of Eritreans. Stats YOU can't account for.
Changing international laws is not an argument to refute the current obligations these countries have acceeded to on their own free wil.
So it does infact mean that they are less eligible for protection.
There is no such thing as less eligible for protection. You are either eligible, or not. You either meet the criteria or not. Now of course it's a legit question what should be done to those who don't cooperate - but first we should ask ourselves, if we have done our best to prepare for the situation? Many countries simply adopted a policy of refuting asylum applicants based on different excuses, pretending that none of those people are eligible for protection, or as if they were not even here. Many people forge their documents exactly because they know that the authorities in some countries are already applying a policy mentioned above, and they hope that with a Syrian passport they will be accepted.
4) You refuting my information because of the source it was published in is a fallacy.
You not comprehending my words is idiocy, no offense.
I didn't refute your data simply based on the source. I didn't just say 'I dismiss your data because it's dailymail'. I provided other data, and if you have to choose between the two, in case they are contradictory- as they are- ,then only a biased or an ignorant person would choose a news site with the reputation of fox news, compared to the EU or the UN.
The Daily Mail's information is actually based on EU's official statistics EUROSTAT:
You must be registered for see links
Yeah, from 2014
And if you check the original source (something dailymail didn't link, oops)
You must be registered for see links
...then you'll see that those 20% being Syrian was still the highest percentage.
And my stats from 2015 still stand.
That UNHCR information seems a bit odd and is contradictory towards that of the EU's. But if in fact it is so that the amount of Syrian refugees has gone to 40% of all refugees during the last two quarters of 2015, then my above arguments prove that this is because other than Syrians pretending to be Syrians.
The EU stats was for the 3rd quarter of 2015, while UNHCR's data was for the whole year. I couldn't find the EUROSTAT data for the whole year of 2015, most probably as there is no such summary yet, especially considering that eurostat's webpage says that the next time they plan to refresh it, is 2016 March- so we can expect it soon I guess.
Anyway, I still don't see what you are arguing for. It's as if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
- We are not even in a disagreement that economic migrants should not be accepted. This is confirmed by the laws as well. Obviously an economic migrant will not get a status he is not eligible for.
- But to say that Iraq, Turkey, or even countries like Serbia, are safe, well, according to EU criteria, they are not, as they doesn't have the capacity to register all those people, to process their application in a fair procedure, and in case they are eligible for refugee status, to provide them with the rights and catering prescribed by the law. Just because some countries put them in tents in the middle of nowhere where at least they are not being bombed, that doesn't mean it's a 'safe third country'.
- While you complain about a few thousand of them complaining about the food or the lenghty process, the thing is that hundreds of thousands- that is, the majority of them- are indeed eligible for protection. This is confirmed by the recognition rates I posted from EU stats.
- My post was originally addressed to Konanx's comment, so good job diverting that course of discussion. But I'll remind you, it's not true that no refugees have fled to Iraq. In general, most Syrian refugees have fled to surrounding countries, while the number of IDPs is even higher than that of refugees.
5) So tell me again which country has failed to provide a fair process or failed to fulfill the laws regarding refugees as I already proved you that most/many of the migrants coming to the Nordic countries and to Germany are infact illegal migrants or lying about their age?
See all the above. My country, Hungary itself has failed to provide them with a fair process, as the authorities are just sending them back to Serbia saying it's a safe country-then Serbia either sends them back further, or transports them to the Croatian border from where Hungary transports them to the Austrian one: without registering them or anything
You didn't prove anything, tbh. You don't even understand the terms you are using. An asylum seeker is not an 'illegal migrant' until their case is examined and their application is refused: in which case they can be transported back to their place of origin only if their lives are not threatened there. Therefore, even if they are lying -something most politicians do, so why don't we deport them too-, it doesn't automatically mean they should be refused all kinds of protection, and be deported just like that. Now of course confirming all that, and proceeding all these procedures is troublesome, but how is it the aslyum seekers' fault that the European governments and authorities are incompetent?
But again, we both agree that those who are really just economic migrants, such as people from Kosovo or Albania, or the Iraqis you mentioned, well yeah they shall be denied protection- and they will be denied, at least according to Eu stats, only a very small percentage of them are granted the refugee status. But in case of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, or Eritreans, the recognition rate is very high, and most of the asylum seekers are still from these places. So no, you didn't prove that most of these people are economic migrants. Most of these people are Syrians, Iraqis, Afghan, and Eritreans: 70-98% of which are recognized as refugees. This is from EU and UNHCR statistics. Obviously those Iraqis that returned home from Finland, or those Syrians who faked their passport, are not in these stats. But you are focusing on 30% of those falsely claiming to be Syrians, and the 70% of the 20000 Iraqis having entered Finland, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands that are eligible for protection, and saying you have proved that most of them are just economic migrants...well it'd be ridiculous if we were not talking about real people here in real need of help.
6) But they do because they lie. That's my point. This has gone out of control
While it's true this has gone out of control, what's your proof that those who got the refugee status, have lied? You insiting that 'German authorities admitted that 30% of those claiming to be Syrians, are liars', doesn't disprove that 70% of them were not liars. And we are talking only about Syrians here. Only in Germany... (Btw why would you bring up fake syrians in Germany, if you want to talk about Iraqis in Finland...inconsistency much? )
Again, we shouldn't punish those who need real protection, just because a number of them are only economic migrants. Inbefore you say: but they can't be distinguished! -Well, how is that the real refugees' fault? Again, we shouldn't punish them for something like that, excluding them from protection.
And again, the fact is: most of them are
not economic migrants. Maybe in your country it's true for Iraqis or in Germany it's true for those 30% of people having claimed to be Syrian (btw their passport being fake still doesn't mean they can't be really Syrians)- but I hope you're aware that this accounts for only a minority of them.
As for them complaining about stuff is a different issue, it again doesn't mean in itself that they are not eligible for protection. In any case, they definitely can't be sent back to Syria or other places where they would be in danger. As Turkey and other such counries are not safe either as per EU standards, it's questionable if they can be sent back there- not to mention, how do you compel, let's say, Turkey to accept them back?