Swarm

[Aberlour10]

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year. German bureaucracy,( pretty effective in "normal" times) is not able to handle it anymore- The main problem: over 50% of them are not refugees but economic immigrants from Balkan states, with 0.1% chance to get asylum here. Any pressure on these people to leave doesnt work, if they have to leave, no later than a few weeks they are back. (Schengen Threaty makes it easy)

[Vampyr]

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year. German bureaucracy,( pretty effective in "normal" times) is not able to handle it anymore- The main problem: over 50% of them are not refugees but economic immigrants from Balkan states, with 0.1% chance to get asylum here. Any pressure on these people to leave doesnt work, if they have to leave, no later than a few weeks they are back. (Schengen Threaty makes it easy)

 

Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.

[Aberlour10]

Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.

 

I wrote only about people who let them official register as a refugees. The number of immigrants living in "underground" is much much higher and a separate issue. These registered ( mostly from Albania, Serbia, Kosovo or Montenegro) return fast after leaving with new names and stories about "losing passport and documents on the run" etc etc,

[kenberg]

I read these European responses with interest. To me, it sounds like one hell of a problem. But I don't know anything.

 

Now I have to go watch some Republicans debate. I am not sure that they know anything either. Except for Trump He knows everything. Just ask him.

[mike777]

Even in a country without Schengen (well, the Channel can be seen as primarily an open border, with its tunnel and ferries) economic migrants just disappear into the woodwork. They can't be deported if they can't be found.

 

Immigrants coming for economic reasons is a good reason, you seem to view it as a negative. I grant jumping the queue is a problem. See my previous posts on this issue.

[Vampyr]

The big main problem is the influx of hard core criminals connected with the drug trade? Even the Wall Street Journal reports that this is a myth.

 

I couldn't read the article, but thanks anyway for posting it. The remark you were replying to was so weird I wasn't sure it wasn't a joke.

[kenberg]

The big main problem is the influx of hard core criminals connected with the drug trade? Even the Wall Street Journal reports that this is a myth.

 

A good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs"? The U.S. funded war on drugs (hardly so-called) has been a total cluster f**k from day one (over a trillion dollars spent since the 70s with net negative results) and has most definitely exacerbated the immigration problem by strengthening narco-cartels and narco-terrorism and destabilizing governments from Mexico to Bolivia. Even the Washington Times reports that the Obama administration gets this. Libertarians obviously got this before the war on drugs was even conceived.

 

The first step in implementing a semi-rational immigration policy is for Congress to pass one. The Senate did this on June 27, 2013. Not rational enough? Spare me.

 

in my twenties I knew several people who used LSD. Now I don't know any. LSD and pot are different, meth and heroin is different again. Myself, I think smoking pot is stupid but I used to drink 154 proof rum so who am I to give lessons.

 

Some people have decent survival instincts, some don't. Exactly what society owes the latter group in terms of protecting them from their own stupidity is a tough question.

 

Basically, when speaking of the problems with drugs, we should stipulate which drugs. I see no reason to waste resources stopping people from using pot, but it would seem strange to allow anyone to buy heroin legally but require me to get a prescription to get a lotion for a rash.

[y66]

I couldn't read the article, but thanks anyway for posting it. The remark you were replying to was so weird I wasn't sure it wasn't a joke.

Paywalled. Sorry. Here's the gist:

 

By JASON L. RILEY July 14, 2015 7:33 p.m. ET

Is the conversation that Republicans want to have about immigration any more serious than the one Democrats want to have about race?

 

The Republican presidential field sports no shortage of individuals capable of speaking intelligently about America’s broken immigration system. Sens. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham have drafted legislation on the issue. Jeb Bush co-wrote an entire book on the subject. And Rick Perry ran a border state with the nation’s second-largest immigrant population for 14 years. So why is Donald Trump, whose comments about immigrants and crime are as ugly as they are uninformed, doing all the talking?

 

The candidates who expect to outlast Mr. Trump in the primaries are no doubt eyeing his supporters. But Republicans would do better to focus on swing voters, whom they might lose if Mr. Trump’s position on immigration is perceived as the GOP’s. Mr. Trump is bringing heat to a debate that needs more light, and other candidates have an opportunity to provide it.

 

They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”

 

A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”

 

It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. “The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults,” the study concludes. “The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.”

 

High-profile incidents, like the recent arrest of a Mexican national in the horrific shooting death of a young woman in San Francisco, can give the impression that immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. But the alleged killer is no more representative of Mexican immigrants than Dylann Roof is representative of white people.

[y66]

Alvaro Vargas Llosa addresses and discredits 7 other myths about immigration in the U.S. in this Forbes story:

 

Myth 1: There are more immigrants than ever and these immigrants break the mold of previous waves.

 

Between 1860 and 1920, fourteen percent of the population was foreign-born. The average for the 20th century is 10-plus percent. The proportion is not different today—about 13 percent. Until the 1880s immigration originated in northern and western Europe but in subsequent decades they came from southern, central and eastern Europe, which was culturally, politically and economically different. Not to mention Asians, who arrived in significant numbers.

 

Myth 2: Immigrants migrate because they are very poor.

 

The poorest people migrate internally. Rich countries such as South Korea have sent many migrants to the U.S. while Bangladeshi women, who are very poor, have migrated little even in Asia, the region with the highest rate of migration. Europe was a net exporter of people until 1980. Family ties, occupational preference, distressed conditions at home and historical ties matter. U.S. involvement in Cuba, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic in the early the 20th century was a critical factor in the movement of citizens from those countries to America. Business interests were key at various times in pushing for the legal hiring of Mexicans.

 

Myth 3: These immigrants are culturally different and threaten the American way of life.

 

Immigrants are religious, family-oriented, entrepreneurial and no more prone to crime than natives. Seventy percent of Hispanics who moved to the U.S. in the last two decades are Catholic (one fifth are “born again” Christians) and 23 percent are Protestant. One in two undocumented households has couples with children; only thirteen percent of them are headed by single parents—against one third of native households. The percentage of immigrant workers who are self-employed mirrors that of natives. Immigrant-led gentrification has revived neighborhoods from New York to Florida. Adjusted for age, the proportion of immigrants who are criminals mirrors that of natives.

 

Myth 4: Present-day immigrants do not assimilate, unlike previous waves.

 

About forty percent of newcomers speak reasonable English anyway, but the three-generation pattern echoes that of previous immigrants: the second generation is bilingual but speaks English better and the third generation speaks only English. By the third generation, out-marriage is strong among immigrants. A century ago, seventeen percent of second-generation Italian immigrants married non-Italians while 20 percent of second-generation Mexicans marry non-Hispanics today (even though, given the numbers, it is easier for them to marry another Mexican.) Second-generation immigrants do better than their parents, as in the past.

 

Myth 5: Low-skilled workers take away jobs, lower salaries and hurt the economy.

 

As producers and consumers, illegal immigrants enlarge the economic pie by at least $36 billion a year. That number would triple if they were legal—various studies point to a $1 trillion impact on GDP in ten years. Low-skilled workers fulfill a need by taking jobs others do not want, letting natives move up the scale. Without them employers would need to pay higher salaries, making those products and services more expensive. They have a tiny negative effect on wages at the lowest end that is offset by a rise in the wages of those who move up—the net effect is a 1.8% rise.

 

Myth 6: A flexible system would mean an invasion of foreigners.

 

Undocumented immigration is self-regulating. When there is demand for immigrant work, they come in large numbers; in times of recession, the flow stops. Between 2005 and 2010 net immigration came down to zero. Legalizing this undocumented market would maintain the dynamic. Since the large number of undocumented people implies that legal barriers have not been very effective, it is safe to assume that market forces would be similar in a flexible system. Mexico is progressing and the problem for the U.S. will soon be how to attract more foreign labor!

 

Myth 7: Immigrants don´t pay taxes and cost more than they contribute.

 

Immigrants pay many local and state levies, including real estate and sales taxes, and about $7 billion in Social Security taxes. Between the 1970s and the 1990s they represented $25 billion more in government revenue than what they cost. They would contribute much more if they were documented. Most immigrant children have at least one parent who is a citizen, so counting all of them as part of the cost of immigration is deceptive. The welfare state was never a “pull” factor: until after World War II immigrants were not entitled to relief programs. Immigrants did not cause government spending to grow by a factor of 50 in one century.

Álvaro Vargas Llosa is a Peruvian-Spanish writer and political commentator on international affairs with emphasis on Latin America. He is also the writer and presenter of a documentary series for National Geographic on contemporary Latin American history that is being shown around the world.

 

Vargas Llosa is the son of writer and Nobel Prize laureate Mario Vargas Llosa and the brother of UNHCR representative Gonzalo Vargas Llosa and photographer Morgana Vargas Llosa. He is married, has a son and a daughter, and lives in Washington, D.C.

 

Álvaro Vargas Llosa is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, who has been a nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group, and is the author of the book Liberty for Latin America, which obtained the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award for its contribution to the cause of freedom in 2005.

[blackshoe]

My comment about the criminal element was not a statistical one. Some of the "illegals" coming from south of the border are criminals. Some of them are very violent. Some of them are associated with the drug trade, and with foreign drug cartels. That's a problem. Note that I did not say the solution is to close the border, or crack down on illegal immigration. If they want to come here and be productive members of our society, let 'em come. If they want to come here and commit crimes, no.

 

At the behest of some very misguided people, we tried an experiment with Prohibition in 1920. That experiment lasted thirteen years, and required amendments to the Constitution both to start and to stop. Now we're embroiled in a "war on drugs" that's been going on since at least 1937, when the same misguided people who pushed through the 18th amendment pushed legislation outlawing marijuana. I have never understood why prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while prohibition of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc apparently does not. But that's a little beside the point, which is why did we not learn from the earlier failure of prohibition? Prohibiting people from ingesting what they want to ingest, whether it be alcohol or any other substance, does not and cannot work.

 

The violence surrounding the illegal making and selling of alcohol dropped dramatically after 1933, and so did the price of booze. Would anyone be surprised if the same thing happened if we abandoned this ill-fated "war"?

[mikeh]

The big main problem is the influx of hard-core criminals connected with the drug trade.

 

citation needed (and Trump's campaign announcement isn't sufficient)

 

I think a good first step would be to eliminate the so-called "war on drugs" and everything attached to it. I do not think closing our borders, or putting up a fence, or a wall, would be helpful in any way.

 

a rare moment on which we are in complete agreement.

 

 

I think that if someone wants to come here, be productive, and join our society (as opposed to bringing along a microcosm of his or her own), then more power to him. If he wants to come here, commit crimes, live off the productivity of the rest of us, then he ought to be denied entry. If he lies about why he wants to come here (surprise, surprise!) then when he is found out, he should be deported — after making reparations (I don't mean jail time) for any harm he's caused others here.

 

The notion of reparations seems to underlie a lot of libertarian thinking about justice. One huge problem is that most criminals are dysfunctional members of society and lack the ability to make reparations. Most of those dealing drugs at the 'retail' end of the market are themselves poor, usually with no meaningful job, no meaningful prospects and no qualifications that would get them a 'legitimate' job. Most of those sticking up stores or mugging pedestrians, etc, are similarly very much at the low end of the socio-economic spectrum, whether they be illegal immigrants or otherwise.

 

It may well be that to someone with a good job, and a net worth measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, the threat of being forced to pay reparations would be a deterrent (tho most studies of which I am aware would suggest otherwise for most criminals in most situations), but for someone with no significant assets or legitimate income the notion is laughable.

 

Btw, if, as I suspect, we agree that the selling of some substances, such as crystal meth, is 'doing harm', how does one measure reparation? The victim has become a meth addict, with all the horrors that that entails, in terms of destruction of a meaningful life, but who gets the reparations? It's no good giving it to the addict, after all. But that is a trivial issue in comparison to the fundamental misconception underlying the theory of requiring 'reparations' from the criminal.

[mikeh]

My comment about the criminal element was not a statistical one. Some of the "illegals" coming from south of the border are criminals. Some of them are very violent. Some of them are associated with the drug trade, and with foreign drug cartels. That's a problem. Note that I did not say the solution is to close the border, or crack down on illegal immigration. If they want to come here and be productive members of our society, let 'em come. If they want to come here and commit crimes, no.

 

At the behest of some very misguided people, we tried an experiment with Prohibition in 1920. That experiment lasted thirteen years, and required amendments to the Constitution both to start and to stop. Now we're embroiled in a "war on drugs" that's been going on since at least 1937, when the same misguided people who pushed through the 18th amendment pushed legislation outlawing marijuana. I have never understood why prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while prohibition of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc apparently does not. But that's a little beside the point, which is why did we not learn from the earlier failure of prohibition? Prohibiting people from ingesting what they want to ingest, whether it be alcohol or any other substance, does not and cannot work.

 

The violence surrounding the illegal making and selling of alcohol dropped dramatically after 1933, and so did the price of booze. Would anyone be surprised if the same thing happened if we abandoned this ill-fated "war"?

 

 

I think that many people, of all political stripes, would agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is regrettable that you seem to base your position, at least partly, on the xenophobia so seemingly prevalent in those of a right-wing political persuasion.

 

Is it possible that your attitude is conditioned to some degree by the entertainment industry, which continually pumps out crime dramas in which the worst villains are 'the Russians' or 'the Chechens' or 'the Mexicans'?

 

There is little fame and fortune to be gained by writing scripts about the quiet lives that most immigrants try to live.

[kenberg]

Perhaps we could add Myth 8: People who are concerned about illegal immigration are anti-immigrant.

 

I suppose that it is possible to believe that anyone who wishes to come to the USA is welcome to come, no questions asked. They just come, and then their children, if born here, become citizens. No restrictions. I am not attributing this view to any poster here. But if we do not hold this view, then where are we? If not everyone can come, then someone decides who can come and what the process is.

 

I recognize the difficulty in enforcing immigration laws, but are we to just say "Well, it's too hard, so we will pretend to have immigration restrictions but in actual fact we will not."?

 

Here would be a start (but just a start). Congress and the President, working together (ok, this is already a fantasy) set the number of immigrants to be admitted in each year. That will be the number admitted. With reasonable monitoring, it should be possible to get a pretty good grip on the number of illegal immigrants coming in. The number of legal immigrants admitted would then be adjusted downward so that the total is in line with the intended number. Then the President and the Congressional leaders would hold a joint press conference to explain this result and explain why they think that this is a good way of doing things. It would make for an interesting show.

[blackshoe]

I think that many people, of all political stripes, would agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is regrettable that you seem to base your position, at least partly, on the xenophobia so seemingly prevalent in those of a right-wing political persuasion.

 

Is it possible that your attitude is conditioned to some degree by the entertainment industry, which continually pumps out crime dramas in which the worst villains are 'the Russians' or 'the Chechens' or 'the Mexicans'?

 

There is little fame and fortune to be gained by writing scripts about the quiet lives that most immigrants try to live.

You are mistaken. I am not a xenophobe. Far from it.

[blackshoe]

I suppose that it is possible to believe that anyone who wishes to come to the USA is welcome to come, no questions asked. They just come, and then their children, if born here, become citizens. No restrictions. I am not attributing this view to any poster here. But if we do not hold this view, then where are we? If not everyone can come, then someone decides who can come and what the process is.

 

I recognize the difficulty in enforcing immigration laws, but are we to just say "Well, it's too hard, so we will pretend to have immigration restrictions but in actual fact we will not."?

Perhaps we should start with "why do we need immigration restrictions?"

[Aberlour10]

Germany faces with huge problems these days, up to 600.000 are expected only in this year.

 

Old news. Now >>>800 000. I would not wonder if there will be 1 million at the end of the year.

[y66]

From Hungary Bows to Defiant Migrants, Promising Buses to the Border:

 

BUDAPEST — After a day of defiance by increasingly desperate refugees, the government of Hungary metaphorically threw up its hands Friday and said it was offering to bus thousands of migrants to the Austrian border, sending the crisis spinning closer to the heart of the Continent.

 

An aide to Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in a statement that the buses would transport the thousands still thronging the Keleti railroad station in Budapest and the approximately 1,200 people who stormed out of the train station earlier on Friday and set off on foot toward the Austrian border.

 

“This does not automatically mean that they can leave the country,” the official, Janos Lazar, said. “We are waiting for the Austrian government’s response.” He added that the govermnment was doing this to relieve the blockage of the nation’s transit system.

Traffic was reduced to one lane on a bridge in Budapest, as migrants made their way out of the city.

 

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/09/04/world/europe/20150905_Migrant-slide-ADKK/20150905_Migrant-slide-ADKK-largeHorizontal375.jpg

Photo credit: Frank Augstein / AP

 

Good description of how European countries are sharing the burden here.

[kenberg]

If someone said that the refugees were swarming over the bridge they could perhaps be criticized for lack of tact, but other than that it seems to be about right.

 

This will not end well.

[Vampyr]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

[shyams]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

[cherdano]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

You might want to have a look at a map first...

[Trinidad]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

Cherdano already pointed out that the countries that you probably refer to (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, ..) are not neighbors of Syria. But, then again, neither are the EU countries.

 

Something that is more important: Why would the Syrian refugees flee to "The wealthy neighbors"? They are fleeing from IS and Assad. "The wealthy neighbors" are supporting IS. (And Iran is supporting Assad.)

 

For a Syrian refugee to flee to Saudi Arabia would make as much sense as for a Polish Jew in WW II to flee to Berlin.

 

They can only flee to the North (Turkey), the West (Lebanon) or South (Jordan). After Jordan, they can't go further and behind Lebanon and Turkey lies the Mediterranean and the EU.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

http://data.unhcr.or...es/regional.php

 

This brief summary is very interesting. If I am reading the figures correctly we are speaking of about 4 million Syrian refugees. That's just the Syrian, and that's only the number so far.

 

I was interested, and perhaps surprised, to see that the male/female breakdown is about even (49.5% male). Moreover this even split holds for each of the age brackets.

 

A little over a quarter are under the age of 18.

 

These are "registered Syrian refugees". I don't know just ow that compares with "refugees attempting to enter Europe" or "refugees hoping to enter Europe" but it seems reasonable to think that if someone is a registered refugee then they are at least hoping and in many cases attempting to go somewhere.

 

 

Of course we are all aware that this is a huge problem but this brief summary helps to put some numbers to the word "huge".

 

What has the world done historically? The Wikipedia tells me that "The number of boat people leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totalled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995. ". That's a lot, but 800,000 is not 4 million and counting.

 

Everyone could do more, most definitely including the US. But I don't find it easy to say "Oh sure, we will take million or so. And another million next year, and sure, a million or so from the other countries". This could come down to the following:

Moralist: It is your moral duty to do whatever is needed.

Response: Maybe so, but I am not about to do it. Call me names if it makes you feel better.

 

I think many people would be open to trying to help, but accepting total responsibility for the fate 4 million (and growing) people may be more than we, meaning I and others, are up for.

In fact, that seems to be what we are seeing.

 

I am open to hearing of concrete realistic plans that fully address the difficulties. Saying that we can just do it, there won't be any problem, is a way to get me to stop listening.

[Winstonm]

This brief summary is very interesting. If I am reading the figures correctly we are speaking of about 4 million Syrian refugees. That's just the Syrian, and that's only the number so far.

 

I was interested, and perhaps surprised, to see that the male/female breakdown is about even (49.5% male). Moreover this even split holds for each of the age brackets.

 

A little over a quarter are under the age of 18.

 

These are "registered Syrian refugees". I don't know just ow that compares with "refugees attempting to enter Europe" or "refugees hoping to enter Europe" but it seems reasonable to think that if someone is a registered refugee then they are at least hoping and in many cases attempting to go somewhere.

 

 

Of course we are all aware that this is a huge problem but this brief summary helps to put some numbers to the word "huge".

 

What has the world done historically? The Wikipedia tells me that "The number of boat people leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totalled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995. ". That's a lot, but 800,000 is not 4 million and counting.

 

Everyone could do more, most definitely including the US. But I don't find it easy to say "Oh sure, we will take million or so. And another million next year, and sure, a million or so from the other countries". This could come down to the following:

Moralist: It is your moral duty to do whatever is needed.

Response: Maybe so, but I am not about to do it. Call me names if it makes you feel better.

 

I think many people would be open to trying to help, but accepting total responsibility for the fate 4 million (and growing) people may be more than we, meaning I and others, are up for.

In fact, that seems to be what we are seeing.

 

I am open to hearing of concrete realistic plans that fully address the difficulties. Saying that we can just do it, there won't be any problem, is a way to get me to stop listening.

 

I think it is fairly safe to say these are not normal immigrants simply wanting a better life but are people fleeing a hostile and life-threatening environment. Normal rules should not be held out as the solution during times like these of life-threatening stress.

[hrothgar]

I had no idea until today that Syria's wealthy neighbours have not taken in a single refugee.

 

Perhaps this is because Syria's "wealthy" neighbors are also deserts?

 

Admittedly, rounding up a few million people and forcing them into the "empty quarter" will end the refugee problem pretty damn quick.

However, even then you still need some way to dispose of all the bodies.

 

Personally, I don't find it very surprising that the refugees don't want to go to the Gulf states.

Other than the Arctic, its hard to think of worse places to put a refuge camp than the middle of the ***** desert.