Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgal | Hacker News Reader

>Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war

Exactly this. The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others and proceed to help the refugees because there's no question about that.

Edit: Wait, I take it by the downvotes that you think people should not be screened and that everyone who shows up at the borders is a distressed refugee fleeing war? I am a Third World citizen and I know for a fact that no one thinks of Europe as a dreamland so yeah, you're good, refugees are all you've been/will be getting. /s

View on HN

>> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw [sic]

Source for that statement?

> The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others

This is exactly what we are doing, but this requires actual checks, not just a look at a person's face.

It is reasonable to assume that if you enter Germany/Sweden it is not because you are fearing for your life in Austria/Denmark.

Austrian and Danish people may freely enter Germany under the Schengen Agreement.

If you are referring to refugees who enter through those two countries, you are ignoring that these countries are also not initial ports of entry into the Schengen Area.

But I generally refuse to follow that line of argumentation: Having the initial ports of entry bear the responsibility for all new refugees is only a fair thing when you are not one of them. Neither Greece nor Italy have the capacity and as long as we are playing hardball international politics in the countries refugees come from, we have to take responsibility for the results of our actions.

Ah - so the only countries that should be expected to take refugees should be those immediately sharing a border with them, right?

Of course not. But when you have "refugees" demanding to be allocated in a safe country and not another safe country then you can't help but question their status as a refugee (i.e. someone seeking safety).

http://news.sky.com/story/1557225/refugee-its-germany-or-not...

You say "refugees" but I only saw one such refugee mentioned in your link. I certainly didn't see enough to know if it was 0.1% of the refugees or 10% or some other number.

Now, suppose you are a refugee, a mechanical engineer fluent in Arabic and professionally competent in English.

Would you have a preference for a country like Sweden or Germany where you are more likely to get a job with your skills? Or would you equally accept being told to move to some other "safe country" where there is high unemployment, little demand for mechanical engineering jobs, and few English speakers?

How do you express that preference without your refugee status being questioned?

Anecdote, so place as much weight on this as you wish.

I was working in a Starbucks in North London and sat next to a businessman. He started advising his wife/fiancee's distant family members on the phone who had travelled to Greece.

He gave them detailed instructions to (1) destroy their passports and forms of ID, (2) claim to be Syrian refugees fleeing from a war-zone and spend a couple of days rehearsing their stories.

He also gave them useful advice about the pros and cons of different country's refugee processing systems.

There are obviously many migrants genuinely fleeing war-zones (and it is understandable that many others wish to escape oppression/ poor economic situations) but self reported origins + reasons should be taken with a pinch of salt. Many applicants know that claiming to be from war-torn Syria guarantees a successful asylum application due to the Geneva Convention, whilst admitting being an Afghan economic migrant complicates things.

My partner's father is an immigration lawyer and does similar for people entering from his country of origin. Although many are from regions genuinely affected by war, still more were admitted as refugees because they told a good story.

According to first vice-president of the European Commission, citing some internal report from the Frontex (EU border agency), 60% are economic migrants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/most-fleeing-to...

It's been 6 months. Have these "new, unpublished, figures" since been published, or otherwise shown to be correct?

In that news article, Timmermans also argued that border closures are not the right solution.

Edit: If https://euobserver.com/migration/132048 is correct, then the 40% refers to the people specifically from Syria. Most of the remaining 60% are from Iraq or Afghanistan. As that link says:

> almost 90 percent the people who arrived by sea in the EU in December came from countries gripped by war or emerged from a wider regional conflict.

I would love to see the actual numbers and how Frontex arrived at them - Frontex' job is NOT to decide on or even investigate in asylum applications at all. They have to refer applicants to relevant national authorities; one becomes an applicant by merely stating the wish to apply for asylum [1].

I furthermore have a severe problem with categorically saying that Moroccans "have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status" - the country is not as bad as it once was, but political activists are still far from safe [2].

[1] http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Training/Practi...

[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and...

Ah, I see. So you differentiate between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor?

Tell me, how do you tell them apart? Do they wear badges?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com