I agree. The state of international migration is very worrying indeed. More people are dying on migration routes then by terrorism ~by a factor of two~ by 50%. That is, hostile border policy by western nations are causing at least many more deaths then global terrorists. And this seems to be getting worse. The global pandemic saw countries double down on their harsh border policy, and there is little reason to believe there is relief in sight.
The climate crisis is rendering more and more places inhospitable which will only deepen the ongoing migration crisis. European nations seem indifferent to this fact and continue their hostile border policy even though a global emergency is imminent.
I indeed applaud any private efforts to offer any help they are able through this crisis, as much help is needed. But I do wish governments would take this humanitarian crisis more seriously. People are dying, there is an emergency, and we governments need to change their immigration policies to reflect that. We need to open our borders and stop this needless suffering of migrants.
But while governments are hellbent on keeping theirs borders this closed, hopefully we will see more companies take action like GitLab here and offer help where they can.
> More people are dying on migration routes then by terrorism ~by a factor of two~ by 50%. That is, hostile border policy by western nations are causing at least many more deaths then global terrorists.
So the west is responsible for people being killed outside of the west? Why don't you blame the countries where these people are getting killed in?
And how many of the people dying on migrant routes actually qualify as refugees according to the definition used by UNHCR?
How many countries do migrants to the west pass through on average, and if it one or more, why not blame those? Why is it not the countries these people are fleeing from that hold the ultimate responsibility? And if they are indeed refugees, why are they passing through more than one country?
I am an immigrant to the west, I would love to have my family here, but I can't because they would not qualify as refugees, why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here? Why are they entitled to me having to pay for them while my family have to struggle with violence and poverty where they live?
That's a very confused argument. Refugees are not a problem? Your family struggle with violence and poverty, yet the West should have tighter border controls? Who's 'officially' a refugee and who isn't?
The game is called 'blamethrowing' and it accomplishes nothing.
> Your family struggle with violence and poverty, yet the West should have tighter border controls?
What does my family's living conditions have to do with the west's border control policy?
> Who's 'officially' a refugee and who isn't?
I do not define this and you can find the definition used by various authorities readily available on the internet.
The country where I reside uses UNHRC definitions and does not consider applications of people who are not already in the country. But as far as I know, struggling with violence and poverty is generally not enough to qualify for refugee status.
Seeking shelter is a protected human right. Crossing borders to seek asylum is not breaking the law. Being a refugee does not make you a criminal. Your question “why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here?” is a loaded question based on false premise and should not be answered.
However, even with a right to seek asylum many refugees need to smuggle them self into their prospected host country. This is an extremely dangerous activity, and is often done through actual criminal groups and costs a fortune. This business would not exist if the border policies in European and North American countries weren’t so hostile. Over half of confirmed migrant deaths occur while crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe conditions. These crossings could be done using far safer transit if Europe had humane border policies. So yes, you can blame the west for these deaths.
On top of that European and North American countries often influence the border policies in the pass through counties such as Turkey and Mexico.
> why do [refugees] get favorable treatment here?
They most often don’t. But they should. The reason being is that their homes are not safe. They need to flee to a new country or risk a worse fate. In other words, they need help. A humane society would give everyone help that needs it.
Protected by who? Where does it come from? If you live in the real world you will know that "protected human rights" are lies westerners tell themselves while they buy cheap goods from china made by slaves.
> Crossing borders to seek asylum is not breaking the law.
If I bring my family here without following immigration procedures they will be deported and I will likely lose my residence permit or be rejected on renewal.
> Your question “why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here?” is a loaded question based on false premise and should not be answered.
No false premise. Most people who come to Europe without following immigration procedures are not refugees. Just because they think they should have the right to live in Europe does not make them refugees, and circumventing immigration laws is the definition of breaking the law.
> However, even with a right to seek asylum many refugees need to smuggle them self into their prospected host country.
If they come from countries not bordering Europe, why do they have to come to Europe? Is Europe the only safe place in the world? And why is Europe responsible for their safety in the rest of the world?
> Over half of confirmed migrant deaths occur while crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe conditions.
How many of these migrants would qualify as refugees? And how is it Europe's fault if they get killed outside of Europe.
> why do [refugees] get favorable treatment here?
> They most often don’t. But they should. The reason being is that their homes are not safe. They need to flee to a new country or risk a worse fate. In other words, they need help. A humane society would give everyone help that needs it.
You conflate refugees and people who illegally enter Europe with no legal basis and do not qualify as refugees. And there are many more of the second category than the first.
Not having a safe home does is not even considered in the definition of a Refugee by UNHRC, and even if it was, generally UNHRC does not recognize the right of those with legitimate refugee status to just decide where they would like to go.
Everyone who needs money is not entitled to mine. I would much rather send it to my family than give it to people who break the laws and enter the country where I reside with no legal basis which places additional tax burdens on me.
I don’t know what you are talking about. You are free to enter Europe and ask for asylum. This is a protected human right under international law, protected by the UN. Your asylum may be rejected and you may be deported, however you never entered the country illegally, as you were asking for asylum, which is not illegal in most (all?) countries in Europe.
What often happens in Europe is that you are illegally deported however. Often an asylum claim is illegally dismissed by authorities, a person has a right to a hearing but is deported before they have a chance, a person is sick and is not allowed to be deported under some conditions etc. A person may have entered using a fake ID, however this is still not a crime if they are fleeing, as official IDs are not something one can easily get when fleeing ones home, and the law most often reflects that (but is then broken by the authorities).
When you hear about what refugees have to go through in the real world you would be surprised by how little authorities abide by their own law and how easily they are willing to break their own laws to evade helping people that need it.
> I don’t know what you are talking about. You are free to enter Europe and ask for asylum. This is a protected human right under international law, protected by the UN.
Are you talking about Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This reads "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Note the qualification, "asylum FROM PERSECUTION."
If you enter Europe, and you do not qualify as persecuted, how exactly does this right apply to you? And if this right does not apply, how exactly is it legal? What law gives you that right?
What limiting principle is there to this right you think exists? Can I travel to any country in the world and just say I'm seeking Asylum without any basis? Where do you get this notion?
I think this dialog is entering some legal territory and I am not a lawyer and can only offer speculation. I’m sure a human rights lawyer can actually fill us in on the specifics here. So my speculation is as follows:
I was under the impression that if you cannot ask for asylum outside of a country’s border, and there are no legal ways for you to enter it (e.g. you need a visa but there is no way for you to acquire one since there is no embassy that will grant you one; or you don’t have a passport since your country’s government won’t issue you one), then you are not exactly committing a crime if you enter “illegally”.
I think you might be assuming that many (most?) asylum seekers are actually doing so under a false premise, and they have no grounds for the asylum application. I’m sure there are some for which this applies, but I doubt it is a sizable number. At least I would need to see some credible source before I would belief so.
I would speculate that by far the majority asylum seekers that are rejected their application and deported, are rejected on technical grounds, not because they applied under a false premise. If that is the case, the majority of refugees, even those that enter illegally, and are eventually rejected and deported, commit no crime in the process.
I don’t think people are concentrating into a small number of countries at all. I don’t know where you get your numbers but according to IOM international migration was 280.6 million in 2020, of which 33.8 million were refugees. Most refugees stayed in the geographic region (e.g. a tenth of the entire refugee destination was to Turkey followed by Jordan at 3 million).
True normal migration lead by culture, love, opportunities, etc. is a lot bigger factor in migration then the climate crisis, but those are not the people suffering from hostile border policies (well not on the same scale as refugees) and don’t need the same help to bypass said policies. But it would be foolish to dismiss climate change and not expect the proportion of refugees to go up in the next years compared to other migrants.
The climate crisis is rendering more and more places inhospitable which will only deepen the ongoing migration crisis. European nations seem indifferent to this fact and continue their hostile border policy even though a global emergency is imminent.
I indeed applaud any private efforts to offer any help they are able through this crisis, as much help is needed. But I do wish governments would take this humanitarian crisis more seriously. People are dying, there is an emergency, and we governments need to change their immigration policies to reflect that. We need to open our borders and stop this needless suffering of migrants.
But while governments are hellbent on keeping theirs borders this closed, hopefully we will see more companies take action like GitLab here and offer help where they can.
EDIT: I cited wrong numbers. Migrant deaths were at least 3,170 by mid December 2019 according to IOM (https://www.iom.int/news/global-migrant-deaths-decline-trage...) while terrorist deaths were around 2051 according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...).