Refugees: the myths and fears

Brilliant article, I must say.


1. ‘They’re not refugees. They’re economic migrants.’

In the last three weeks on the road in Europe, about 80 per cent of those I’ve met have been Syrians. I’ve also met Iraqis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Senegalese. The Syrians are fleeing war – no question. Bangladeshis and Senegalese are probably in search of a better life because of poverty and lack of opportunity at home. With others it’s more complex. Continuing conflict in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq has made normal life impossible for many, but definitions blur. If you’re a young man whose father was killed in a car bomb in Baghdad and who cannot find work to support your mother and sisters, are you a refugee or an economic migrant? I’m not sure.

2. ‘They’re lying. They’re not really Syrians.’

Certainly the best nationality if you want to be accepted as a refugee now is Syrian. I suspect that some of those who told me they were Syrian may have been Iraqi. But I am not an idiot. I ask people where exactly in Syria they are from and chat about what’s happening there to see what they say. A translator has been helping me to distinguish Arabic accents. And when someone tells me he’s from war-torn Somalia and gives me a Nigerian name, then I know he’s lying.

3. ‘They pay thousands to people smugglers. This proves they’re not genuine refugees.’

You don’t have to be poor to fear Islamic State or President Bashar al Assad’s barrel bombs. Even rich people flee war. Many of the Syrians fleeing now are middle-class, English-speaking and university educated, but after five years of war life has become impossible. Globalisation means that many have relatives abroad who send money by Western Union or other transfer services. The Eritrean diaspora is particularly well organised. This distinguishes the current refugee crisis from previous ones.

4. ‘Refugees stay in the first “safe” country they reach. If they leave they become economic migrants.’

Under the Dublin Protocol refugees should claim asylum in the first EU country they reach. Nowadays that usually means Greece or Italy. Neither can cope, so Greece just lets people through. This is not the fault of refugees but it’s true that most want to get to Germany or Sweden, where they may have relatives and where they know their children have a better chance of education and they may get work. Syria’s neighbours – Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – cannot cope with the four million Syrian refugees they’re hosting. Refugee families who had hoped that by now the war would be over and they could go back to their old lives in Aleppo or Idlib realise that’s not possible, but if they stay where they are their children will not go to school. They’ll live forever in camps or building sites with no hope of a future. So they move. So would you. They’re still fleeing war. This is why UNHCR has asked European and other countries to accept more refugees from camps in neighbouring countries, as Britain is now doing.

5. ‘They’ll be a burden on European societies.’

Initially, yes, it costs money to house and feed refugees. But refugees and migrants are often the most dynamic members of society. George Soros, for example. Or Einstein. I suspect one reason Germany is so open to Syrian refugees is because their society is ageing (like ours) so an injection of young, determined, often well-educated refugees might be quite helpful.

6. ‘They’re coming for the benefits.’

They’re coming because they want a future. Statistically, after an initial period of settling in, refugees and migrants are less likely to claim benefits than natives.

7. ‘They’re all men, which proves they’re not genuine refugees. They should fight for their country.’

Many of the ‘economic migrants’ are young men who hope to get a job and send home money to their families. Remittances to Africa are more significant than economic aid. Amongst refugees I’ve seen groups of young men as well as families. It’s a mix. Some young Syrian men are fleeing conscription into Bashar al Assad’s army. Others are disillusioned with the rebels. There are more than 2000 militia, including local groups, in Syria now. Joining one is not going to solve Syria’s problems. It’s entirely rational to flee not fight. (And men often take the dangerous journey alone hoping to get their families over separately later via a more safe route.)

8. ‘Terrorists are infiltrating Europe by posing as refugees.’

Actually it’s the other way round. European terrorists are going to Syria. If terrorists want to infiltrate Europe why bother to send them on a long, arduous journey? There are plenty of potential terrorists to recruit in Europe. Much cheaper and more efficient.

9. ‘You show pictures of cute children to pull our heartstrings.’

Guilty as charged. Part of our job as journalists is to show viewers how this feels. I’ve seen hundreds of kids on this journey and I find it incredibly affecting. The girl watching Macedonia speed by from the train window as her exhausted family slept around her. The smiling toddler whose mother had placed him in a luggage cart at Vienna station. The little boy at the Austrian border who forgot all his tiredness and fear because someone had given him a plastic brontosaurus. We have an instinctively sympathetic response to children because they’re necessary for the survival of the human race.

If we didn’t have empathy we’d have died out long ago. The story of humanity is a story of movement, migration, birth and adaptation. This is just a tiny chapter.

http://blogs.channel4.com/lindsey-hilsum-on-international-affairs/refugee-myths-fears/5529

Yawn... more leftie waffle...

Yawn, more RW stupidity and ignorance.

It's all just waffle, denial and propaganda...



We don't want or need any more immigrants here no matter what sob story they come up with.


The Syrians are already in places of safety and The vast majority of others are just economic migrants with a sob story to bullshit their way in after crossing large numbers of other safe countries... so not fleeing anything at all!!!

why can't we build and protect an area in syria. tents the lot, guard them and keep the there...

I disagree Tommy. It's actually a very fair and very informative article.

How do see it as not being "fair"?

It is speculative waffle in many ways and very limited, but trying to present itself as an authority on all immigrants and asylum seekers... most are bogus just tring a sob story to get entry and permission to stay in our country for their own personal and financial gain.


The writer is saying that most of she Syrian refugees are Syrian for a start... admitting that many aren't!!!


What does that tell you...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?


Ha ha ha

Please repeat that again Tommy where you claims they are not Syrian and that they are?
Did you get confused over the bold which is the myth part?
Then followed by the facts?


Ha ha ha

From the bullshit in The op...


"...In the last three weeks on the road in Europe, about 80 per cent of those I’ve met have been Syrians..."


So 20% of those he/she met during those 3 weeks in Europe travelling from the direction of Syria weren't Syrian...



The ones travelling from Libya are from sub saharan Africa.


And they are not coming through the same route this article claims to have been at.

ha ha ha ha ha

Twatty said
The writer is saying that most of she Syrian refugees are Syrian for a start... admitting that many aren't!!!


80 percent is many then so he never contradicted himself did he


ha ha ha ha]


Another classic Twatty fuckup ha ha ha

eddie wrote:I disagree Tommy. It's actually a very fair and very informative article.

How do see it as not being "fair"?

Thanks, I thought so too.

Christie wrote:

eddie wrote:I disagree Tommy. It's actually a very fair and very informative article.

How do see it as not being "fair"?

Thanks, I thought so too.

It is, it's a fair article and answers many of the questions that alot of people want to know.

cool if they are not poor they can live off their own bank accounts so they will sign a waiver on claiming benefits...

well we can live in hope..lol

A very good article that tries to cut through the fear mongering

in fairness I'll ask you the same question as I have asked the other wet letteuces on here

IF when a group of these "refugees" turns out to be somethng more sinister and carries out an atrocity here......what are you going to say to the catastrophically injured survivor that asks you WHY did you do it.

will YOU accept YOUR responsibility and provide for him.....?
or will you, like the rest so far blather on about how he "should be looked after" and yet do sod all about it

or perhaps like Eil you will be full of impotent outrage and still do nothing...not even accept that YOU...personally, bear some DIRECT and tangible responsibility for what happened?

well Yes I would fund the treatment and whatever pension they required. Like I believe in doing for all my fellow Australians (new and old)
Yes I would bare responsibility but even if the worst should happen I would still do it again. Seriously they are not going to be any worse the first lot of migrants.

and they use to say that about the Vietnamese, that they would be commie infiltrators, well that was bullshit.

Refugees from the war in Vietnam were the first large group of Asian immigrants to settle in Australia after the end of the White Australia policy in 1973. Because of their plight they were initially sympathetically received by the Anglo-European Australians. As their numbers increased this turned to apprehension which in time became acceptance.

The greatest proportion of Vietnamese Australians live in Sydney with strong vibrant communities in Sydney’s west and south west although many second generation now live throughout greater Sydney. The social mix of the refugees included people from all professions and walks of life in Vietnam which is reflected in today’s Vietnamese Australian communities.

and also why I did what? "showed compassion" well the same reason i would be doing it to them or anyone else.

victorismyhero wrote:in fairness I'll ask you the same question as I have asked the other wet letteuces on here

IF when a group of these "refugees" turns out to be somethng more sinister and carries out an atrocity here......what are you going to say to the catastrophically injured survivor that asks you WHY did you do it.

will YOU accept YOUR responsibility and provide for him.....?
or will you, like the rest so far blather on about how he "should be looked after" and yet do sod all about it

or perhaps like Eil you will be full of impotent outrage and still do nothing...not even accept that YOU...personally, bear some DIRECT and tangible responsibility for what happened?

Absurd reasoning, are you going to lay blame on all holiday companies and all buisnessess that have profited off any tourists that have come here who then commit an attrocity? Where are you going to draw the line on who we can blame this for? Sorry you are manking some of the most silliest arguments going which are not based on sound reason but thinking they are clever enough to deny people the right to come here.
So it would be helpful if you could actually present some stats to back up your claims.
I mean how many refugees have come to this country and committed terrorism?
The fact is the country does look out for the victims who are disfigured or injured by such crimes, of which we cannot predict. So all it seems to be a case of then is what you feel satisfied over who is going to be to blame.
So basically your is the blame game, well that opens up a can of worms on many accidents and crimes in this country but do you aplly the same to all?
The simple answer is no,

Also I find it is the same silly logic rags used
Only the guilty would focus on blame instead of focusing on making things right

And only a coward would suggest that risk is too great to help innocent children.
It is braver to knowingly take on risk of attack. than to attack simply because there is the slightest level of risk.