Greece Struggles to Return Migrants Under EU-Turkey Deal

[FriendlyFire]

Why? Are they incompetent, are there logistical issues, funding issues, or what?

I think Greece is doing everything it can to spite Turkey, even if it means cutting its own nose off.

EU plan to send Syrian refugees back to Turkey jeopardised by Greek court

A Greek immigration tribunal has ruled that Turkey is not a safe country to send refugees back to – throwing an EU plan to return Syrians there en masse into jeopardy.

The EU and Turkey reached a deal in March under which Turkey would close its internal border and prevent refugees from travelling to Europe under their own steam.

Repatriation from Greece was one of the main aims of the scheme, to relieve pressure on the already austerity-hit country

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-turkey-blocked-by-greek-court-a7039886.html

I guess Safety, food, and shelter in Greece an EU country isnt "good" enough.
Germany already taken in 1 Mil and cannot adequately provide with resources stretched. EU is prepared to pay 700Mil to Greece to house and feed refugees. A far more realistic plan would be for the EU to accept a few ten thousand refugees per year max with adequate housing, services and time to assimilate instead of scrambling to deal with 1 Mil+ which is already a huge disaster. Now the rioting, arson, and gang rape EU sympathy for accepting more is pretty much at its limit.

Shocking footage shows RIOTING MIGRANTS clash with police at refugee camp

Refugees pushed a wagon against a blockade, forcing officers to fire tear gas at rampaging crowds.

A massive brawl broke out, as four tents in the camp were set on fire and rocks and stones were thrown at the police.

Clashes in the camp are reportedly a regular occurrence as groups try to force themselves through the border and into more prosperous EU states.

A police source said that at least three Greek police members were injured.

The number of injured remains unknown.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...lent-riot-police-tear-gas-greek-refugee-campe

 

[innonimatu]

To be fair, Turkey under Sultan Erdogan is no longer a country I would feel safe in. So paying them off to "jail" those migrants can arguably make those fleeing Turkey refugees. If not now then soon, the way things are going...

The British government intentionally let refugees drown in the Mediterranean to dissuade others

That is not happening. But if there are too many of them attempting to cross, it will come down to that I have no doubt. And it'll be a (unofficial) policy with broad public support.

 

[Agent327]

I guess Safety, food, and shelter in Greece an EU country isnt "good" enough.
Germany already taken in 1 Mil and cannot adequately provide with resources stretched. EU is prepared to pay 700Mil to Greece to house and feed refugees. A far more realistic plan would be for the EU to accept a few ten thousand refugees per year max with adequate housing, services and time to assimilate instead of scrambling to deal with 1 Mil+ which is already a huge disaster.

The disaster being how these refugees are being received.

Obviously a (Greek) court will rule asylum rights are being violated when they are. And they are. But don't expect the same from a Turkish court.

Syrian children refugees are put to work en masse in Turkish factories

In Turkey, Syrian children refugees are put to work en masse to help supplement their family's income. In all seven factories in the textile and shoe industry visited by de Volkskrant in the east Turkish city of Gaziantep last week, children were at work.

Continued here: http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/s...-work-en-masse-in-turkish-factories~a4304700/

 

[FriendlyFire]

To be fair, Turkey under Sultan Erdogan is no longer a country I would feel safe in. So paying them off to "jail" those migrants can arguably make those fleeing Turkey refugees. If not now then soon, the way things are going.

Thats OK they can stay in "safe" Greece
With Bulgaria, Austria and Macedonia closed borders on Greece even if this deal collapses I doubt we will see another huge wave of Refugees. Though all these report of ethnic violence, arson, rioting and attacking police is painting a worsening situation.

Decision by Greek independent asylum service to overturn deportation order throws EU-Turkey migration deal into chaos

“At its very first test, the EU-Turkey deal crumbles,” said Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s deputy Europe director.

Greek media said it would be only a matter of time before the “bombshell” decision had the snowball effect of triggering an avalanche of similar asylum requests by other refugees, especially Syrians, detained on far-flung Aegean islands

The increased prospect of being allowed to stay in Greece, rather than being returned to Syria, could also spark a renewed wave of migration from Turkey.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-wins-appeal-against-forced-return-to-turkey

 

[luiz]

Care to prove that they are going to Germany or Sweden because of welfare benefits?

Those are two countries that indeed give very generous benefits to refugees.

And the reason they choose them doesn't matter, even if they do seem to love their welfare benefits (check the lines to get them). As soon as you escape the war zone and start crossing safe countries, you're no longer a refugee. Refugees don't have the right to shop for the most desirable location, be it for welfare benefits, job opportunities, or nice landscape. The only international commitment is to keep them safe from persecution. Which they are in Turkey. So once they reach Germany they are by definition economic migrants and aren't entitled to anything.

Also, lets not forget that a very significant percentage of these so-called refugees came from countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and etc. Not war zones. I was reading in Le Figaro the other day about whole villages in Morocco that were emptied after the word arrived that the route to Europe was wide open. That was the result of Merkel's bid for the Nobel Peace Prize: an invitation to everybody from Morocco to Pakistan to head to Europe with no checks or controls. This invitation was seized by many legitimate refugees, no doubt about it. It was also seized by hordes of economic migrants, and quite a few terrorists and criminals as well.

 

[Agent327]

I see luiz visits Germany and Sweden now... I don't know about Sweden (recent reports aren't encouraging), but Germany doesn't have a fat welfare system. As was already mentioned earlier.

Thats OK they can stay in "safe" Greece
With Bulgaria, Austria and Macedonia closed borders on Greece even if this deal collapses I doubt we will see another huge wave of Refugees. Though all these report of ethnic violence, arson, rioting and attacking police is painting a worsening situation.

Seeing as 'all these reports' amount to what? 5 incidents in 1 year? Grain of salt seems in order. The same actually hoes true of incidents by 'concerned citizens'. Now if only we had some politicians with backbone, who actually stood up for European values, instead of selling them out for Turkey to 'take care of the problem'.

 

[luiz]

I'm working in Munich. And Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees.

Also, this doesn't matter. What matters is that refugees are not entitled to choose Germany. By the time they reach here they're economic migrants and should be treated as such. They already crossed half a dozen of perfectly safe countries and are not entitled to any special treatment. The end

 

[innonimatu]

I'm working in Munich. And Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees.

Also, this doesn't matter. What matters is that refugees are not entitled to choose Germany. By the time they reach here they're economic migrants and should be treated as such. They already crossed half a dozen of perfectly safe countries and are not entitled to any special treatment. The end

So if Germany ceases handing them cash... what follows in that roadmap? Because it would not be the end.

 

[Agent327]

Refugees will come as long as there is reason to flee countries. The whole 'refugee deal' is mindbogglingly naive.

I'm working in Munich. And Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees.

Based upon the fact that you 'work in Munich' we are supposed to believe that 'Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees'? I think you confuse the fact that receiving 1 million refugees cost a lot of money with 'handing over cash to refugees'.

Also, this doesn't matter. What matters is that refugees are not entitled to choose Germany.

They are, actually. There's no rule that says 'refugees should apply for asylum in the first country they enter', nor is there a rule that says they should apply in the first safe country they enter.

I'm sure plenty of people in Munich agree with your fact-free opinions. That doesn't absolve them form being fact-free.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They are, actually. There's no rule that says 'refugees should apply for asylum in the first country they enter', nor is there a rule that says they should apply in the first safe country they enter..

That is Correct
EU can however deport that refugee back to the first country he/she entered into the EU by and/or reject claim and deport them back to home country.

The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013; sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention)

is a European Union (EU) law that determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to “determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]”[1] and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

 

[luiz]

So if Germany ceases handing them cash... what follows in that roadmap? Because it would not be the end.

Obviously the idea is not to accept infinite numbers of "refugees" in the first place.

Refugees will come as long as there is reason to flee countries. The whole 'refugee deal' is mindbogglingly naive.

There will always be conflict, as there always was. The only thing that is mindbogglingly naive is the notion that Europe can receive all the misery in the world.

Based upon the fact that you 'work in Munich' we are supposed to believe that 'Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees'? I think you confuse the fact that receiving 1 million refugees cost a lot of money with 'handing over cash to refugees'.

They are, actually. There's no rule that says 'refugees should apply for asylum in the first country they enter', nor is there a rule that says they should apply in the first safe country they enter.

I'm sure plenty of people in Munich agree with your fact-free opinions. That doesn't absolve them form being fact-free.

As I always do, I will prove you wrong. I hope you don't run from this thread as you always do after I've proven you wrong. You are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen, and also one of the people with the highest percentage of being wrong I've ever witnessed. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

Anyway, that Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees is very well known. This took me 3 seconds:

Applicants for asylum in Germany receive 143 euros ($159) in "pocket money" per month while they await initial reviews of their cases. The cash is meant for transportation and communication purposes, and it is separate from the accommodation, food and clothing that they also receive.
After this initial phase, the support increasingly takes the form of cash. A single applicant for asylum is given 359 euros per month, the amount deemed sufficient by the state to ensure a "dignified existence." Not more, but also not less.

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-feed-asylum-applicants-dont-give-them-money/a-18652421

Note that 359 euros per month per person is certainly much more than what most of these economic migrants made in their homes.

Again, economic migrants that crossed several safe countries should be treated as economic migrants. It's up to the societies that host them to decide whether or not they want to accept them, and in what numbers and under what conditions.

European people should be given the chance to decide whether or not they're OK with the mass immigration happening right now.

 

[Agent327]

That is Correct
EU can however deport that refugee back to the first country he/she entered into the EU by and/or reject claim and deport them back to home country.

What can and what should are two different things. There have been 'some problems' with sending refugees back to their home country. And in the case of Syrian refugees it's a quite absurd idea.

Obviously the idea is not to accept infinite numbers of "refugees" in the first place.

If the situation is that there will be an 'infinite' number of refugee situations, I'm not sure what else you think can be expected.

There will always be conflict, as there always was. The only thing that is mindbogglingly naive is the notion that Europe can receive all the misery in the world.

I don't know anyone who has that idea though.

As I always do, I will prove you wrong. I hope you don't run from this thread as you always do after I've proven you wrong. You are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen, and also one of the people with the highest percentage of being wrong I've ever witnessed. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

Anyway, that Germany hands a lot of cash to refugees is very well known. This took me 3 seconds:


http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-feed-asylum-applicants-dont-give-them-money/a-18652421

Note that 359 euros per month per person is certainly much more than what most of these economic migrants made in their homes.

'Economic migrants'? Not per person though. Per adult. And that is not 'a lot of cash handed'. what it is, is well below sustenance support. So, here we have our first fact corrected. Perhaps you should adjust your opinion accordingly.

Again, economic migrants that crossed several safe countries should be treated as economic migrants. It's up to the societies that host them to decide whether or not they want to accept them, and in what numbers and under what conditions.

Economic migrants again. Aren't you one of those? So far you haven't proven that any refugee is an economic migrant. Nor is that up to you.

And once again, there is no rule that asylum seekers should do so in the first 'safe' country they enter. (And if countries make such rules, there's always courts to judge whether such laws agree with human rights.)

European people should be given the chance to decide whether or not they're OK with the mass immigration happening right now.

Not really. First, there is no 'mass immigration'. Secondly, immigration is governed by law, not the opinion of the day.

Still waiting for you to substantiate any of the claims you've made.

 

[jackelgull]

Back in 2015 most of the migrants were single men but this has changed in 2016. However when you look at how attempts have been made to settle some migrants in less desirable countries in Europe and this was met with flat refusal it does seem like the primary motivation in going to Europe isn't necessarily to escape conflict.

I can think of why refugees might not want to go to those poorer countries.

No matter where they go in Europe they'll meet with resistance and hatred. But at least in places like Greece, Germany and Italy, citizens won't take up vigilante activity against them, and even if they do, it is likely the state will crack down on it. However, in the less desirable countries there's no such guarantee. The vigilante activity might happen and the government will look the other way. And I can only imagine the headlines if Muslims try to fight back.

So yeah, either they fight to stay where they are now, or fight harder later.

 

[luiz]

If the situation is that there will be an 'infinite' number of refugee situations, I'm not sure what else you think can be expected.

Germany alone received over 1.1 million "refugees" in one single year. That's over 1.3% of their entire population. That's an absurd number, which can't obviously continue. Whether or not there is conflict in Syria is immaterial to the fact that Germany can't accept over one million "refugees" per year.

I don't know anyone who has that idea though.

You and other denialists who refuse to talk about a hard cap to immigration, saying there should be no limit to how many people the EU should allow in. That was essentially Merkel's position until recently.

'Economic migrants'? Not per person though. Per adult. And that is not 'a lot of cash handed'. what it is, is well below sustenance support. So, here we have our first fact corrected. Perhaps you should adjust your opinion accordingly.

That's a lot of cash, more than the average salary in most third world countries. What's more, that's in addition to housing, food and clothing. So this is essentially leisure money. That's way more than most of them had in their home countries, and is no wonder it's a great invitation for economic migrants.

Economic migrants again. Aren't you one of those? So far you haven't proven that any refugee is an economic migrant. Nor is that up to you.

What I am or am not is completely irrelevant (not that you know anything about me other than a couple lines I've written here).

Nobody is saying being an economic migrant is bad. Nobody is saying people are wrong to seek better life conditions. What is being said is that there are specific rules for admitting economic migrants, and countries are free to accept them or not. Refugees are people fleeing from war zone. Many of these so-called refugees are coming from the likes of Morocco, Egypt and Pakistan. This is an easily demonstrable fact. Even the ones coming from Syria and Iraq have already crossed many safe countries before reaching Germany, so they're not in any need of protection. The reason they're leaving refugee camps in Turkey or Lebanon is not escaping danger, it is seeking more attractive destinations. And that makes them economic migrants.

And once again, there is no rule that asylum seekers should do so in the first 'safe' country they enter. (And if countries make such rules, there's always courts to judge whether such laws agree with human rights.)

Yes, there are the Dublin rules that state refugees should claim refuge on their entry country, or face deportation. There's also the fact that if refugees are considered as leaving a safe country, such as Turkey, they can be deported. As for courts, they follow the laws, not your desires.

Not really. First, there is no 'mass immigration'. Secondly, immigration is governed by law, not the opinion of the day.

Still waiting for you to substantiate any of the claims you've made.

So over 1 million immigrants in a single year for a single country is not mass immigration? This is the greatest migration crisis since the end of WW2, and yet according to you, it doesn't qualify as mass migration!

How am I supposed to argue with this level of insane denial?

You're completely out of touch with reality. Get out of your parents basement more often.

Also, the refusal to hear the people saying enough to current mass migration is leading to far-right triumphs throughout the continent.

Moderator Action: Personal attacks are not welcome here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

Germany alone received over 1.1 million "refugees" in one single year. That's over 1.3% of their entire population. That's an absurd number, which can't obviously continue. Whether or not there is conflict in Syria is immaterial to the fact that Germany can't accept over one million "refugees" per year.

Your comment is also irrelevant to the fact that while there are refugee generating conflicts, they will not stop coming.

Secondly, it's not an absurd number. It's a large number. But not a number Germany would not be able to handle if taken care of properly. It's the latter that has been sorely lacking in this entire 'refugee crisis' - and it still is lacking.

You and other denialists who refuse to talk about a hard cap to immigration, saying there should be no limit to how many people the EU should allow in. That was essentially Merkel's position until recently.

There's no such thing as a cap to immigration. In case you hadn't noticed that's never been discussed in the EU. Only, shall we say, in suspicious circles.

That's a lot of cash, more than the average salary in most third world countries. What's more, that's in addition to housing, food and clothing. So this is essentially leisure money. That's way more than most of them had in their home countries, and is no wonder it's a great invitation for economic migrants.

Strange argument. These people aren't migrating to third world countries, so what it would be worth in third world currency is completely irrelevant. And no, this is not essentially 'leisure money'. Perhaps you are an uneducated person, but people moving to a country they basically know nothing about are in need of some basic education. Not too mention some preparation for work situations. And last I heard education in Germany isn't free.

Nobody is saying being an economic migrant is bad. Nobody is saying people are wrong to seek better life conditions. What is being said is that there are specific rules for admitting economic migrants, and countries are free to accept them or not. Refugees are people fleeing from war zone. Many of these so-called refugees are coming from the likes of Morocco, Egypt and Pakistan. This is an easily demonstrable fact. Even the ones coming from Syria and Iraq have already crossed many safe countries before reaching Germany, so they're not in any need of protection. The reason they're leaving refugee camps in Turkey or Lebanon is not escaping danger, it is seeking more attractive destinations. And that makes them economic migrants.

I believe this is called 'shifting goal posts'. First you argue against 'economic migrants', now economic migration isn't bad. Perhaps you should try making up your mind before starting an argument.

Secondly, countries are not free to accept refugees or not. and once again, it's not up to you to determine whether immigrants are economic or simple refugees. 'Many of these refugees are from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan': according to what data?

Thirdly, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are already overcrowded with refugees. None of these countries are know for their respect for human rights, but they are neighbours, so they do what they ought to. (And yes, that are a bit more than '1 million immigrants'. But nobody thinks of that, do they.)

Yes, there are the Dublin rules that state refugees should claim refuge on their entry country, or face deportation. There's also the fact that if refugees are considered as leaving a safe country, such as Turkey, they can be deported. As for courts, they follow the laws, not your desires.

The Dublin agreement is one between states. It's to regulate immigration. It does not state and cannot state that refugees can be sent back. Any state has an obligation to accept refugees.

Secondly, Turkey is not 'a safe country'. Check with Amnesty International.

So over 1 million immigrants in a single year for a single country is not mass immigration? This is the greatest migration crisis since the end of WW2, and yet according to you, it doesn't qualify as mass migration!

Goalpost shifted again. You argued that there was mass immigration to Europe, not Germany. And why do you think Germany wants to regulate immigration so each EU member does its fair share?

 

[NovaKart]

I can think of why refugees might not want to go to those poorer countries.

No matter where they go in Europe they'll meet with resistance and hatred. But at least in places like Greece, Germany and Italy, citizens won't take up vigilante activity against them, and even if they do, it is likely the state will crack down on it. However, in the less desirable countries there's no such guarantee. The vigilante activity might happen and the government will look the other way. And I can only imagine the headlines if Muslims try to fight back.

So yeah, either they fight to stay where they are now, or fight harder later.

Is that really the reason? I mean there are plenty of refugees and migrants who aren't even content to stay in France for example or Germany and go around to several countries.

 

[NovaKart]

This was an interesting article but I don't know how accurate Ezidi Press is. Its an Ezidi news site, better known as Yazidis. We don't have the Chechen side of the story. However I have heard of clashes between refugee groups like between Afghans and Syrians.

Bielefeld – A mass brawl erupted on Saturday evening at a refugee hostel in Germany near Oldentruper Hof in Bielefeld, with Chechens and Ezidis fighting each other.

30 people were said to have been involved in the brawl, five of which were seriously injured and had to be treated in hospital with head and facial injuries. Those who had been injured turned out to be Ezidis, the Westfalen-Blatt reports.

The brawl was started by Chechen Muslims who had been armed with sticks and knives, according to Neue Westfälische. Police reinforcements have been brought in to prevent further clashes. The perpetrators, however, have not been caught yet.

Christians and Ezidis are repeatedly attacked by Muslim refugees at German refugee hostels. It is, however, unclear whether the Chechen perpetrators were refugees too.

The activist group “Eziden Weltweit” which takes care of refugees in Greece contradicted the reports, claiming there had been no mass brawl but an “ambush” by the Chechens who had lured Ezidis out of the hostel and attacked them with knives and other weapons.

http://ezidipress.com/en/bielefeld-mass-brawl-between-chechens-and-ezidis-at-german-refugee-hostel/

 

[innonimatu]

There's no such thing as a cap to immigration. In case you hadn't noticed that's never been discussed in the EU. Only, shall we say, in suspicious circles.

I am not at all surprised there is no desire to cap immigration among EU bureaucrats and ideologues (I suspect some circles that you do not). National communities, to work, must have a certain degree of stability. The EU aims at dissolving national communities in Europe ASAP, and ending the existing style of representative democracy in the process. Unchecked immigration would further those aims.

Except that (and here I have to agree with Luiz) it will unleash a political counter-movement before that happens. Has already. And it is not just about immigration, it is about the sense of shared community (which includes the political community, the same understood social rules) having been upset. Immigration, economic dislocations... it's being attacked on multiple fronts. There is a limit to how much of these things any society will take before its rules break down (instead of just slowly changing) and it descends into violence while crafting new ones.

Is that really the reason? I mean there are plenty of refugees and migrants who aren't even content to stay in France for example or Germany and go around to several countries.

No, it is not an issue of safety. Some of those who were relocated to Portugal already left, and they were certainly not endangered here. A sizable proportion of these immigrants are shopping around for the best place to settle, economic-wise. Which is not surprising: that's the whole idea behind economic migrations.

 

[Agent327]

I am not at all surprised there is no desire to cap immigration among EU bureaucrats and ideologues (I suspect some circles that you do not). National communities, to work, must have a certain degree of stability. The EU aims at dissolving national communities in Europe ASAP, and ending the existing style of representative democracy in the process. Unchecked immigration would further those aims.

But, despite these perceived aims, 'EU bureaucrats and ideologues' don't support it. So what exactly are you arguing?

Except that (and here I have to agree with Luiz) it will unleash a political counter-movement before that happens. Has already. And it is not just about immigration, it is about the sense of shared community (which includes the political community, the same understood social rules) having been upset. Immigration, economic dislocations... it's being attacked on multiple fronts. There is a limit to how much of these things any society will take before its rules break down (instead of just slowly changing) and it descends into violence while crafting new ones.

Can take a while longer then, seeing as most major European countries have long had substantial (including Muslim) minorities, without, oddly, any signs of unstable societies. And what is meant by 'economic dislocations' exactly?

No, it is not an issue of safety. Some of those who were relocated to Portugal already left, and they were certainly not endangered here. A sizable proportion of these immigrants are shopping around for the best place to settle, economic-wise. Which is not surprising: that's the whole idea behind economic migrations.

It may surprise you to know, that despite EU relocation plans, people actually have freedom of movement. Which is another little detail that makes the EU-Turkey deal naive. Not to worry, the poorly equipped European border police will get help from NATO - to protect democracy, of course.

 

[r16]

syrian-children-refugees-are-put-to-work-en-masse-in-turkish-factories

it's not only the children , they are cutting down workers' pay due to their obviously desperate needs to survive . Take those refugees who used to end up dead in the sea with their almost useless lifevests which could be bought down to 25 Turkish liras . Sewn out of useless material by Syrians who would work for 100 Turkish liras a week , now almost 30% of the minimum wage . So by like killing 16 people per month every worker would come free to his/her employer .