BBC Reporting Of European Migration Issues

[StringJunky]

Do you think they are presenting a narrowly judgemental and corporate viewpoint against those who don't agree with unfettered movement of migrants within Europe? It seems to me that they have taken a stance and are now using all the coporate machinery to emotively influence the political landscape on this issue.

 

Here's a link to the current BBC page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Edited September 4, 2015 by StringJunky

[waitforufo]

I'm not quite sure why they use the term migrant. Aren't the vast majority of these people actually refugees?

[StringJunky]

I'm not quite sure why they use the term migrant. Aren't the vast majority of these people actually refugees?

This seems to be the main bone of contention at the moment. I'm in the camp that the vast majority are economic migrants exploiting the situation for a better economic life.

 

My rationale is that they are not simply looking for the first safe refuge they come across but vociferously looking to settle in countries with the best welfare benefits, far beyond the first sites of safe refuge.

Edited September 3, 2015 by StringJunky

[DevilSolution]

21st century exodus. Whos a migrant, whos a refugee? Weve been bombing syria, iraq, afghan etc. What would you do? America knows what its doing. Islam is being outcast by the west, those migrating will feel the right hand before the left.

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

I'm not quite sure why they use the term migrant. Aren't the vast majority of these people actually refugees?

 

Refugees are migrants (but not all migrants are refugees).

Weve been bombing syria, iraq, afghan etc.

 

Millions fled Syria due to its civil war and the rise of IS, long before "we" got involved.

Do you you think they are presenting a narrowly judgemental and corporate viewpoint against those who don't agree with unfettered movement of migrants within Europe?

 

No.

I'm in the camp that the vast majority are economic migrants exploiting the situation for a better economic life.

 

Evidence?

 

 

My rationale is that they are not simply looking for the first safe refuge they come across but vociferously looking to settle in countries with the best welfare benefits, far beyond the first sites of safe refuge.

 

The overwhelming number of refugees from Syria (and neighbouring countries caught up in the conflict) have stayed in places like Lebanon and other middle-Eastern states. So your argument doesn't hold water.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Strange

[overtone]

 

 

Millions fled Syria due to its civil war and the rise of IS, long before "we" got involved.

The US has been significantly involved in Syrian affairs since long before IS was invented.

[CharonY]

This seems to be the main bone of contention at the moment. I'm in the camp that the vast majority are economic migrants exploiting the situation for a better economic life.

 

 

 

Could you define "vast majority"? Numbers that I have seen seem to point that somewhere around 40-50% are from war regions (though there are other types of refugees of course and with the largest group not from war regions being from the Balkans).

 

 

 

My rationale is that they are not simply looking for the first safe refuge they come across but vociferously looking to settle in countries with the best welfare benefits, far beyond the first sites of safe refuge.

 

 

I think you are conflating two elements. The first is that they do not stay in the first safe region. My question is, would you? Once you are out of immediate danger would you stop thinking about the future and be complacent being housed and fed with no obvious perspectives?

The second aspect is the claim that the migrants are actually only there for the benefits. While I have read that often, it is not backed up by any data I could find. The questions are: do migrants prefer welfare over jobs? And if it is welfare they are after, do they really go to countries with the largest allowances?

Now, during the processing (which can two years and used to be even longer) refugees obtain the equivalent of the subsistence limit of the respective countries. So basically there is little incentive to choose a country based on that.

 

Now, the next question for any ambitious welfare moocher is where can I get the most benefit after asylum is granted. Now this is actually even trickier as the actual benefits will differ quite a bit on how long you worked in a given country. But there are a lot of different schemes that may provide additional benefits (i.e. for clothing or furniture) that may be present in one, but absent in another.

 

That being said, looking at OECD values in terms cash benefits as percentage of GDP, Germany is in the middle of the pack (3.8%), whereas Belgium (8.2) and Denmark (7.9) spend less. Nonetheless Germany sees a disproportionate amount of applications.

To find the eligible cash equivalent is actually non-trivial but solely looking at benefits, there is little reason to favor Germany that much.

Maybe it is, not the main reason for choosing a country after all?

[John Cuthber]

This seems to be the main bone of contention at the moment. I'm in the camp that the vast majority are economic migrants exploiting the situation for a better economic life.

 

My rationale is that they are not simply looking for the first safe refuge they come across but vociferously looking to settle in countries with the best welfare benefits, far beyond the first sites of safe refuge.

Two points;

only one of the "camps" can be correct, so we ought to find the facts before deciding which one we are in.

Many migrants and refugees seek to get to the UK even though we do not offer generous payments to them (They would be better off in Germany, for example.)

 

The most important point is that if we gave all (every man, woman and child) the 250,000 or so people who have come to the EU from Syria £100,000 (a silly sum of money) each it would still cost us less than 0.25% of our GDP.

We could afford it.

The "crisis" is political - the politicians are trying to find a new scapegoat for their failure to manage the economy.

[Strange]

The US has been significantly involved in Syrian affairs since long before IS was invented.

 

How long have they been bombing Syria?

[Essay]

Do you think they are presenting a narrowly judgemental and corporate viewpoint against those who don't agree with unfettered movement of migrants within Europe? It seems to me that they have taken a stance and are now using all the coporate machinery to emotively influence the political landscape on this issue.

 

Here's a link to the current BBC page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

You might be on to something ...about that political landscape, and the talk about "unfettered movement of migrants," in the UK, which Germany seems to have noticed.

 

I usually watch the half hour “world” news (for an English-speaking audience), from Deutsche Welle (DW) TV in Germany, and recently (9/1?) on this topic, Barbara Wesel explained how the “holdup in getting a comprehensive plan in place” was coming “from Budapest …other Eastern European Countries …Poland …Slovakia …the Baltic States, and from Great Britain, where a totally hysterical debate about migrants has opened up now.”

===

 

This seems to be the main bone of contention at the moment. I'm in the camp that the vast majority are economic migrants exploiting the situation for a better economic life.

 

My rationale is that they are not simply looking for the first safe refuge they come across but vociferously looking to settle in countries with the best welfare benefits, far beyond the first sites of safe refuge.

...or maybe not:

 

For months now, DW has been covering Germany’s many efforts to welcome, care for, and integrate these refugee newcomers, along with covering the few efforts to revile, attack, or otherwise discourage immigrants who are arriving or staying in Germany. Overall though, even with these high numbers recently, it is still less than one percent of their population that they are coping with every year.

 

The main attraction in Germany, it seems to me, is a good (the best) job market, and similarly with the other “preferred” destinations, in descending order, are the “better” job markets. The 'migrants' also seem to easily learn where they now will be most welcomed, and where they now and historically are not welcomed. The worst job markets are in those (least welcoming) countries where these people find their “first sites of safe refuge.”

 

I guess if one is smart (or rich or desperate) enough to escape the increasing destabilization, one might also be inclined to search for the best chance at a stable future. But since it is a very complex and increasingly dynamic problem, I wish the EU luck with their comprehensive plan, as well as getting that plan in place. It still seems though, roughly to be holding steady, at about one per thousand, who die trying to get into the EU. “As [mentioned in a blog at The Economist] a large country with a population of 80m, Germany tops the list of acceptances ....Considering its demographics, EU needs immigration….”

 

~

Edited September 4, 2015 by Essay

[ajb]

It should not just be a European issue. The Gulf states should be doing more to ease the pressure on Europe.

[waitforufo]

It should not just be a European issue. The Gulf states should be doing more to ease the pressure on Europe.

The Gulf States? Come on. What have they done for the Palestinians?

[CharonY]

It should not just be a European issue. The Gulf states should be doing more to ease the pressure on Europe.

 

Well, it is not only an European thing, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt have all more Syrian refugees. It is true that specifically the Gulf states do not appear to get involved much, though.

[Delta1212]

Do you think they are presenting a narrowly judgemental and corporate viewpoint against those who don't agree with unfettered movement of migrants within Europe? It seems to me that they have taken a stance and are now using all the coporate machinery to emotively influence the political landscape on this issue.

 

Here's a link to the current BBC page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

So what's the corporate advantage to an influx of migrants drawing subsidtence benefits from the state and not working?

 

Genuinely curious.

[StringJunky]

So what's the corporate advantage to an influx of migrants drawing subsidtence benefits from the state and not working?

 

Genuinely curious.

No idea, Left-leaning ideology probably. When i wrote the OP I was feeling very annoyed because the BBC seems to have lost impartiality and neutrality on this matter. Methinkis they will be brought to task by review bodies concerned with this sort oversight when thingshave calmed down a bit.

[Strange]

No idea, Left-leaning ideology probably. When i wrote the OP I was feeling very annoyed because the BBC seems to have lost impartiality and neutrality on this matter. Methinkis they will be brought to task by review bodies concerned with this sort oversight when thingshave calmed down a bit.

 

I'm sure there are also people annoyed by their right-wing anti-immigration stance and the fact they don't present enough information about the problems the refugees face. <shrug>

 

Similarly, at every election there are letters of protest claiming the BBC is biased in favour of both the left and the right.

 

I assume this means they have got the balance about right.

[StringJunky]

 

I'm sure there are also people annoyed by their right-wing anti-immigration stance and the fact they don't present enough information about the problems the refugees face. <shrug>

 

Similarly, at every election there are letters of protest claiming the BBC is biased in favour of both the left and the right.

 

I assume this means they have got the balance about right.

I disagree in this instance. They lost their neutra;lity. Normally I see swings and roundabouts. <shrug> <sarc>

[Commander]

I have not gone into the full details of the Migration Problem and why these People are in such dire needs !

 

I read recently that many Followers of Christianity were killed in Syria and a Video of cutting off the heads of People buried neck deep was circulated.

 

Therefore I think most of these Migrants may be those who are being religiously persecuted.

 

If European Countries are Economically advanced and are able to cope with this influx and are Magnanimous enough to accommodate these Migrants IT WILL BE A GREAT GESTURE and the World should be Proud of the Nations which do such HUMANITARIAN SERVICE !

 

Also it is SAD that we have Political Entities like ISIS which have contributed to such Miseries around the World !

[John Cuthber]

There are about 500 million people in the EU. A few million immigrants (who cares if they are economic migrants or refugees?) wouldn't matter.

As I pointed out, the cost isn't that great. OK so £25 billion sounds like a lot of money, but, to put it into context, it is about a tenth of what we paid to bail out the banks when they screwed up.

 

In my view, it's no so much that welcoming these people would be a great gesture, it's that failing to do so is a great shame.

And that's before we start looking outside the EU for either accommodation or financial support for these people.

[iNow]

So what's the corporate advantage to an influx of migrants drawing subsidtence benefits from the state and not working?

Genuinely curious.

There are both positive and negative economic effects in such situations, the degree of each highly contingent upon the existing infrastructure and social policies of the host nation, the dominant culture and political leanings of the hosts, the number of refugees being assimilated, the types of skills and work ethic and degree of resourcefulness each individual brings with them, and a countless many other similar relevant variables.

 

There's no monolithic or simple yes/no, good/bad, if this/then that metric we can apply without digging much deeper into the specific details of each individual situation (unless unfounded ideological opinion is deemed to be sufficient, which it's not).

 

However, since you specifically asked about the potential positive impacts:

 

http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68d0e10.html

The economic impact of refugees on host areas, however, is not necessarily negative. An economic stimulus may be generated by the presence of refugees and can lead to the opening and development of the host regions. This stimulus takes place, inter alia, through the local purchase of food, non-food items, shelter materials by agencies supplying relief items, disbursements made by aid workers, the assets brought by refugees themselves, as well as employment and income accrued to local population, directly or indirectly, through assistance projects for refugee areas. The presence of refugees also contributes to the creation of employment benefiting the local population, directly or indirectly. Moreover, relevant line departments involved in refugee work as counterparts to UNHCR, both at central and local levels, also benefit from UNHCR assistance aimed at strengthening their coping and management capacities. Such assistance may include equipment supply, capacity building and related training components.

 

The presence of refugees, as a focus of attention, can also attract development agencies to the host areas. While infrastructure is developed in the initial stage primarily to facilitate the work of host governments, UNHCR and its implementing partners in the refugee affected regions, it can also serve as a catalyst to 'open up' the host region to development efforts that would otherwise never reach these 'marginal' areas.

[MigL]

Seems to me this problem isn't new, the southern European countries like Italy and Greece have been dealing with it for a number of years. As far back as 20 yrs ago refugees/migrants from the break-up of Yugoslavia and Albania were flooding into neighboring countries, then came the influx from North Africa. When boatloads of people were being rescued at sea in the southern Mediterranean, or landing on southern European beaches, and Italy and Greece asked for help from the rest of the EU, they were told to 'suck it up' as it was their problem.

 

Now that the economies of those countries are in trouble ( Italy ) or total shambles ( Greece ), such that even refugees don't wanna go there, and rather, are heading for places like Germany, France, England, etc. where they can have a future, NOW ( all of a sudden ) its a problem ?

[Ten oz]

As the world becomes more densely populated, interconnected, and mobile it will eventually become necessary to hae standard protocol to deal with situations like this. Climate change over the next hundred years will ensure waves of refugees will continue. At the end of the day the planet is one place; one piece of real estate. We can not send refugees off planet to Mars. Ignoring the issue will only ensure future wars which will only exacerbate the problems. Countries like the United States and Canada which have lots of room and resources should help. Taking in this wave doesn't solve the problem though. The world community needs to start considering investing in developing parts of the world in a preventive manner. Viewing the world as an assembly of individual states seperated by culture, race, tradition, and etc will only lead to war after war once hundreds of millions start relocating.

Humans have migrated throughout history: Out of Africa into Europe and Asia, from Asia and Europe into the Americas, from Europe back into Africa, and etc, etc, etc, etc. It isn't about to stop tomorrow. Donald Trump supporters who think a wall can hold off a movement that has been in place since the dawn of humanity are foolish. People who believe that a particular land is their inheritance by birth are narrow minded. Every land has been inhabited, displaced, re-inhabited, and so on time and time again. It has generally been done with violence. Untold numbers have been killed. Whole cultures snuffed out of history. It doesn't have to be that way. As humans knowledge grows we should eventually be able to learn from the past. Be able to apply what we have learned towards the future. There will be future mass migrations whether we like it or not. We need to start investing in the infastructure to support them.

[MigL]

I think someone else has already mentioned it, but us 1st world countries don't have enough kids, we're not even at replacement level, and our populations are aging.

Soon the cost to the small number of young working people will be too great to sustain the increased numbers of pensioned retired people.

The only solution is immigration, and accepting refugees seems to 'kill two birds with one stone'.

It provides working young people for us, and gives them a chance at a new life.

[fiveworlds]

As I see it the options for the moment are

1. We allow the refugees into Europe.

2. We let the refugees in and kill them.

3. We don't let the refugees in

4. We don't let the refugees in but we arm them and tell them to fight for their lands

5. We let the refugees in but we arm the ones who want to fight

6. We overthrow the regime forcing the refugees out.

7. We place trade embargoes on the regime forcing them into a very bad position economically.

8. We carpet bomb them

9. We send in special forces with the intention of killing high level targets

[Ten oz]

As I see it the options for the moment are

1. We allow the refugees into Europe.

2. We let the refugees in and kill them.

3. We don't let the refugees in

4. We don't let the refugees in but we arm them and tell them to fight for their lands

5. We let the refugees in but we arm the ones who want to fight

6. We overthrow the regime forcing the refugees out.

7. We place trade embargoes on the regime forcing them into a very bad position economically.

8. We carpet bomb them

9. We send in special forces with the intention of killing high level targets

My country (US of A) has been arming Syrian rebels and using special forces in the region for a long time. An argument can be made that such interventions have only made the problems worse. Providing food and shelter to Syrian refugees is a lot easier than resolving the Syrian Civil War.