Originally Posted by paw339

IMO the biggest problem we face about Asylum, immigration and migration is with the exception of a few on the extreme left and right, no politician seems willing or able to talk openly and sensibly about the realities of the situation and the future. It took all of 2 days for Croatia to realise its idealistic welcome to the flood of migrants was untenable. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world who would probably qualify as a refugee and if every single one of them was resettled over the next 10 years in 10 years time there probably still would be hundreds of millions of people who qualify as refugees. Just look at Afghanistan. Now add a few more wars caused by an extra billion people in Africa and climate change?

So should we stick with the present system which makes it relatively easy to claim Asylum and places no limit on the number of Asylum claims but then makes it incredibly difficult to get to Canada to claim asylum in the first place? Should you be able to jump the queue by illegally entering a country and claim asylum directly rather than via the UN from refugee camps? Should countries be allowed to fix a maximum number of Asylum places a year and then only offer temporary humanitarian visas to anyone else. Should we allow a million refugees to come to Canada every year as per Germany after all so many people deserve a better life? Should the number refugees a country accepts be affected by any negative effects on the host countries population? Look at Sweden; they have already had to close at least one school because of violence between different groups of refugees/immigrants and over 50% of all murders are now carried out by first or second generation immigrants. But then look at Canada and how well the Vietnamese boat people have settled into Canada? Does the Culture of a refugee and how well you think someone might settle in matter when deciding who to offer refugee status to? Should we just accept the world is a melting pot and we are all in this together or should we leave the people of country "x" to sort out their own problems without interference? How much aid should we offer when homelessness, poverty and unemployment exists in Canada?

edit Having reread the above it comes across as a bit hard. Perhaps in the long-term a hard solution is the only solution. I Really hope that's not the case.

Originally Posted by leith

There has been little discussion on a very relevant and inescapable biological principle - carrying capacity, defined as "the maximum population of a given species that can survive indefinitely in a given environment." Humans are fundamentally dependent on how much food the environment can produce. With more and more parts of the world becoming less productive, the numbers of people capable of being supported are decreasing in large areas. Water shortages in Australia, Africa, the United States and Canada are just one example of the declining capacity for food production in areas that appear to be able to accommodate more people but in reality cannot. Sending food and/or water from areas that are still productive is not a sustainable solution - the current supply of fuel for transport which makes this appear to be feasible isn't going to last.
Europe is overpopulated. The present flood of migrants brings into sharp focus the fact that this continent cannot support the numbers now attempting to live there - in short, it is far exceeding its carrying capacity. Sending thousands elsewhere or trying to artificially increase the capacity by sending resources there isn't going to solve the overpopulation problem. Populations that exceed carrying capacity either choose voluntarily to limit their numbers or factors such as war, disease, and lower fertility rates come into play. Europe is already experiencing relatively minor conflicts and is on the verge of much larger and more violent outbreaks. Disease, probably influenza, is soon going to be a major factor, with the pressure for other continents to accept more migrants being in direct opposition to the need to limit the spread of infectious diseases. Spanish 'flu in 1918 killed more people worldwide that World War I itself. The current situation in Europe is ripe for a major disease epidemic and right now the manoevering among European nations simply shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.

Originally Posted by leith

There has been little discussion on a very relevant and inescapable biological principle - carrying capacity, defined as "the maximum population of a given species that can survive indefinitely in a given environment." Humans are fundamentally dependent on how much food the environment can produce. With more and more parts of the world becoming less productive, the numbers of people capable of being supported are decreasing in large areas. Water shortages in Australia, Africa, the United States and Canada are just one example of the declining capacity for food production in areas that appear to be able to accommodate more people but in reality cannot. Sending food and/or water from areas that are still productive is not a sustainable solution - the current supply of fuel for transport which makes this appear to be feasible isn't going to last.
Europe is overpopulated. The present flood of migrants brings into sharp focus the fact that this continent cannot support the numbers now attempting to live there - in short, it is far exceeding its carrying capacity. Sending thousands elsewhere or trying to artificially increase the capacity by sending resources there isn't going to solve the overpopulation problem. Populations that exceed carrying capacity either choose voluntarily to limit their numbers or factors such as war, disease, and lower fertility rates come into play. Europe is already experiencing relatively minor conflicts and is on the verge of much larger and more violent outbreaks. Disease, probably influenza, is soon going to be a major factor, with the pressure for other continents to accept more migrants being in direct opposition to the need to limit the spread of infectious diseases. Spanish 'flu in 1918 killed more people worldwide that World War I itself. The current situation in Europe is ripe for a major disease epidemic and right now the manoevering among European nations simply shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.

Originally Posted by JamesM

According to the UN the earth can sustain between 9 and 10 billion people. We are currently at 7 billion and shouldn't hit that level till close to the year 2100.

Where did you lift most of this from?

Originally Posted by Shard

Asylum is a process. It is not citizenship; it is not PR. It is temporary residency and limited benefits while risk of persecution is verified. It's not a perfect process, but it aims to protect people.

Originally Posted by confused_uk

Exactly, it's a process, a potentially long one & a process in which you have to, as a refugee, be patient & follow the rules for. Chaos is not the answer.

I get that these people are desperate, frustrated, etc. but they can't expect to be given special treatment as individuals when there are so many people to process. They can't all expect to go to the handful of countries that give out the most benefits, there just isn't the resources to support them all. They need to, at designated camps, wait to be distributed to countries the UN deems capable to accept them. The main thing should be they are safe from war, clothed, housed, & fed, which they are in the camps. The ones illegally border hopping are a) risking their lives unnecessarily & b) making the people who have followed the rules wait longer.

They also need to weed out the economical migrants (who I suspect make up a lot of the numbers of the border crossers) as they are taking away the resources needed for genuine refugees.

I may sound harsh to some people but in this situation whoever is in charge need to be practical problem solving people, the act now think later let everyone in brigade will just cause a whole host of problems further down the line.

Originally Posted by Shard

The current exodus should be permitted to claim asylum in the EU country of choice, and housed, whilst plans for redistribution and dealing with next year's surge are urgently made.

Originally Posted by Shard

It's very easy for us in our armchairs to say "follow the rules" but the systems and infrastructure are not in place in most countries. Certainly not in Greece, not in Eastern Europe, and even it would seem not in France. The refugees flock to countries like Britain, Germany and Sweden because they are treated with dignity, in other countries they live a very hard life, often dangerous life, often in camps. If you've seen some of private holding centres in Italy, for instance, condemned buildings, for instance, you would not have quite so much faith in the "process".

There is a economic migration element to this too, but for the past several years if not decade Europe has been sleepwalking on the problem. We do need to establish a humane and organised quota system for member countries and ensure provide funding.

I don't begrudge the chaos we see. The people are trapped in a corner, by political incompetence and trying to avoid a miserable existence. Winter is coming. The current exodus should be permitted to claim asylum in the EU country of choice, and housed, whilst plans for redistribution and dealing with next year's surge are urgently made.

Originally Posted by MikeUK

Why ?

What's wrong with the country of landing ???

why do they get a choice ???

if you do what you are proposing all you do is encourage others to join a problem and make it bigger !!!

and I'm pretty sure that's why it not being proposed by any of the countries involved

Originally Posted by confused_uk

The system is in place in Turkey, lots of money has gone into building safe adequate camps there. Are any camps in Europe UNHCR camps or just quick solutions by those countries to a sudden influx of people they weren't expecting not being the first safe country for most to have to step foot in? This is exactly why you can't allow chaos, it leads to substandard accommodation & perilous journeys. If you swoop in & give these people everything they want it encourages more to do the same.

Of course all they want is a better life but common sense has to enter the equation at some point. I couldn't show up unannounced at a hotel with 1000 people & expect them to accommodate us, it's a nice ideal if they could but not actually feasible.

Originally Posted by Shard

Lets take Greece as a convenient example. Country in economic collapse and corruption endemic. Huge migration of professionals to other parts of Europe. Public sector employees unpaid or made redundant. Hospitals without medicines and growing racisms to non-Greeks (tourists and migrants). Political unrest and rising right anti-immigrant sentiment in New Dawn Party and many struggling Greeks.

So you're suggesting Syrian refugees landing in Greece would be best placed in Greece even though they don't want to be there, and the Greeks don't want them there. And the Greeks cannot afford for them to be there.

Why is that? Why is so important to break with reason and logic to meet the letter of a 1951 agreement which did not envision the world we have today?

I can explain why Britain and Germany. Because combined we have 140 million people and are far better able to absorb a large migration in terms of numbers, economic wealth, social infrastructure, and public attitude. Why do you think poxy Greece, 11 million people, would be a better choice?

Originally Posted by Shard

Would you stay at "camp" for several years and watch your children grow up there? The refugees don't find them "adequate" for a long term existence, hence the problem. Common sense is to integrate people not shut them away in camps, as was done in 1930's. UNCHR has not been permitted to intervene in Europe, and that is half of the problem. Too many disjointed governments with different agendas.

As to your feeble hotel analogy, putting the numbers into perspective, how about showing up with two people and wanting emergency accommodation?