|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 8:39:00 GMT
You are the Prime Minister or the Queen/King of a country. You have authority to dictate by yourself, or with the approval of your Parliament, the policies of your country. The country is relatively rich in comparison to many African, Asian, Middle Eastern and South American countries. You are what could be termed 'Westernised'.
It's not important how, but suddenly the country has appeared, all clean, fresh and new. You have a blank slate.
Others from many countries want to live there. Do you open your borders to everyone, i.e. free movement, and they can live and stay as long as they want? Do you have some form of restrictions? If so, what are they and how do you police this? Practically.
Do you say no one with a criminal record can come? No one with "indications of malevolent intentions, be they criminal, terrorist, paedophilic or a history of thuggish behaviour"? How practically do you determine their intentions? Are you allowed to say you think they are a paedophile so they can't come in? Or that they have been racist, so sorry, no entry? Where do you draw lines if you do favour restrictions? Or, as some say, it matters not who they are, what race, religion or any other criteria to group people, there should be open borders and free movement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 9:53:46 GMT
From equivalent countries which have similar legal systems, I think that borders should be open to people with clean legal records.
For countries with very strange legal systems (to us), we are often proud to welcome people who have been sentenced to death in other countries, or convicted of crimes like the defense of human rights, but obviously people are accepted on a case-by-case basis in the EU. Countries leaving the EU will have to come up with new rules.
As for authentic refugees, I believe that it is our duty to accept them, but of course that has nothing to do with immigration and would be cause for a different debate. There are extremely few countries in the world where a significant amount of the population has not been a refugee at one time or another.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 10:55:22 GMT
From equivalent countries which have similar legal systems, I think that borders should be open to people with clean legal records. So there needs to be access at the point of entry to the criminal records systems of all those countries from any other country? Big Brother? As for authentic refugees, I believe that it is our duty to accept them, but of course that has nothing to do with immigration and would be cause for a different debate. If anyone wants to enter and stay in a country, be they a refugee or not, they are by definition an immigrant - "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence". So yes, refugees are included. "Authentic refugees......" They are who? And who decides? And how is this decided? And how decided practically at the point of entry? Let's say I'm Turkish and wish to live in your nice new rich country for no other reason than economic reasons, i.e. I'd have more money, possibly even without working, as I'd get various benefits and allowances that I don't get when unemployed or even when having a job in Turkey. I'm not being persecuted, I'm not LGBT...GHFJYGKNYHUHJUPOUIWSDBVNOI or whatever, my religion is accepted in Turkey, or any of the other reasons that supposedly make be an "authentic refugee". It is purely for economic reasons. But... I turn up at your border saying I'm from Syria escaping the war and on the journey I've lost all my papers/passport etc. Give them the benefit of the doubt and welcome them? Have a blanket policy that it would be intrusive to ask them too deeply about their motivations so you don't appear aggressive or domineering, so anyone without documents is allowed to enter, permanently? Or, practically, how do you determine the truth without being accused of being racist or anything else someone will no doubt accuse you of?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 11:21:43 GMT
Refugees are NOT immigrants, although some of them ultimately become immigrants.
Just as one example, France took in more than 500,000 Spanish refugees in 1939. Yes, 300,000 of them remained in France, but nobody regrets that. Many more would have returned if the Caudillo had not remained in power until 1975, but once you have raised a family in a foreign country, it is hard to move again.
The millions of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan dream only of going home as soon as possible, it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 12:52:44 GMT
So 300,000 stayed in France? They are then immigrants are not? Are you saying a refugee has no intention of moving permanently, thus they are not by definition an immigrant? But do they become one if they do not return? When is that then? Five years? Ten years? Or, as long as they 'intend' to return, they can not be classed immigrants no matter how long after they move? Do they change status after having a family in their new country?
They enter as a refugee but transform to an immigrant when not returning? How long do they stay as a refugee then? There are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, legal refugees and illegal refugees. I presume then there is a certain moving between categories and flexibility of status. A refugee who is forced out because of war, religion, persecution et al who decides they are better off living in a new country, who has little reason or compunction to return and is sick to death of the situation there, is still a refugee, or an immigrant?
The photos of Paris you've posted, tons of good ones and are always enjoyable, but those of the people on the railway tracks. Can't remember their declared nationality. They are refugees or immigrants? Are they returning at all? Or at some indistinct time in the future when they think their country is liveable in?
"The millions of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan dream only of going home as soon as possible, it seems to me." Of course they do. It's crap where they are now. I know, I've seen the camps in the north of Jordan. Transplant them though to the UK or France or a western country and how many really want then to return to the aftermath of a war torn country with no services, jobs or infrastructure? Or will they just wait for a few years until someone else sorts it out and they will return? And while they are waiting, they have a family, get ties, maybe employment, benefits, housing and so on. Still refugees or now immigrants?
Yes, a refugee may not set out to be an immigrant - but for many it's a bloody good idea once they are inside the system. Especially for young males who have few ties with their home country. I bet you find the few that do return are families who were all born in their original country rather than any other category.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 13:22:02 GMT
If you do not know the difference between a refugee and an immigrant, I am not surprised that England is going to hell in a hand basket.
My grandparents and my mother were all refugees during the various wars of the 20th century, but they were never immigrants, even though my grandmother was even displaced to Belgium until the war ended.
The people on the railroad tracks are EU citizens with a right to live anywhere they choose in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 14:57:52 GMT
Explain to me what you say the difference is. Yes, there is a difference, yet my questions above remain unanswered. Does a refugee never become an immigrant? And does their intention mean they always remain a refugee? "....a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster." (Note, no mention of intention to return) Certainly, but then, "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." So initially a refugee then if the person decides to stay, they are an immigrant. No? They, according to the definitions, can't be classed as a refugee any more? There must be something wrong with my logic then. Enlighten me.
So those on the train tracks are EU citizens. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 15:22:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 15:31:23 GMT
"....a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster." (Note, no mention of intention to return) That is why 300,000 Spaniards stayed in France permanently -- the Spanish Republic was permanently conquered by a royalist general. Shit happens. France was full of Brazilian, Chilean and Argentinian refugees during the 1970's. Some of them became friends of mine. And they were all absolutely thrilled to return home when their governments became democratic acceptable again. I don't know of a single one who stayed.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 16:03:47 GMT
So that answers the question - does a refugee become an immigrant. Yes. If they are a legal refugee then they must apply for residence or some permanence. If they don't, they become an illegal refugee. If they apply and are granted, they become an immigrant. Thus, one can still call oneself a refugee but in reality, in legal terms, one is an immigrant when you have the right to remain.
"Ergo", getting back to the original posts, in any consideration of immigration, refugees have to be considered and are a factor.
I notice the cards are valid for between one and four years (can't see with the last one). Good idea though I do agree this does cause problems in the UK when we are generally averse to having to have and/or carry an ID document. It might be seen as a small price to pay (if we don't have these refugee ID cards) for what we see as a freedom. I know I'm very used to being in countries where it is a lawful requirement to carry some form of passport/ID card/residence card etc. I make a (juvenile and probably silly) point of not doing so purely because I am being dictated to that I must.
Conversely, as regards refugees returning, I knew and worked with many European refugees who fled to the UK during and after WWII. None returned and none they knew had. I don't know of a single one who did.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 16:06:26 GMT
Anyone want to go back to the OP and tell me how you would run your immigration department?
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 16:08:03 GMT
Though we can continue to discuss refugees and their status. I'm quite interested in that as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 16:22:36 GMT
Conversely, as regards refugees returning, I knew and worked with many European refugees who fled to the UK during and after WWII. None returned and none they knew had. I don't know of a single one who did. Charles de Gaulle?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 16:25:37 GMT
Anyone want to go back to the OP and tell me how you would run your immigration department? I don't think we will be qualified until we have completely studied Her Majesty's rules.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jul 6, 2016 16:41:12 GMT
We didn't call him Charles though. Charlie was good enough or after a drink or two of cheap red, it'd be Chaz.
Those rules are a tad complex. I was hoping for something a little simpler.
|
|