Migrant crisis: EU plans penalties for refusing asylum seekers [$290,000/person]
Source: BBC
The European Commission has proposed reforms to EU asylum rules that would see stiff financial penalties imposed on countries refusing to take their share of asylum seekers.
The bloc's executive body is planning a sanction of 250,000 (£200,000; $290,000) per person.
The Commission wants changes made to an asylum system which has buckled amid an influx of migrants.
The plans would require support from most member states as well as MEPs.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36202490
That is equivalent to 66yrs wages for the average Syrian (based on the ILO stat of $364avg monthly wage).
Hmmmm, could there be a cheaper way? Or should we just threaten them to send us $290,000 for each of our unemployed or we will send them there?
Democat
(11,617 posts)Neither voters not politicians in some countries will appreciate the idea.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That will go over well with the ordinary people.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)resettlement. It is mostly conservatives that resist refugee resettlement in the US as well.
Antipathy towards the EU is a common sentiment on the right in Europe. The refugee crisis has given the an Islamic OTHER to use as an example of why the EU is evil.
The EU probably would be better off to let (or force) the RW governments in eastern and central Europe to leave. (Kind of like liberal Americans taking Texas conservatives up on their threat to their state secede from our country. ) The relatively liberal and prosperous core countries in northern Europe would be better off without the conservative-led countries that have joined later. I don't think that liberal European think that way so they won't jettison and wall off the relatively poor countries in central and eastern Europe but will continue to try to work with them.
400 arrested as left wing protesters clash with far-right in Germany
Hundreds of left-wing protesters have clashed with people attending a far-right party conference in the German city of Stuttgart.
AfD, which wants to ban the burqa and outlaw minarets in Germany, is expected to announce that it is explicitly anti-Islamic during the meeting.
The party was due to set out its manifesto ahead of country's general election next year.
Footage on social media showed the protesters shouting slogans such as: "Keep refugees, drive Nazis away!"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/alternative-fur-deutschland-conference-protesters-germany-arrested-a7007971.html
Gungnir
(242 posts)Washington Post
The Arab worlds wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syrias refugees
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/
BBC
Migrant crisis: Why the Gulf states are not letting Syrians in
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34173139
BBC
Migrant crisis: Why Syrians do not flee to Gulf states
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34132308
NPR
Gulf States Fend Off Criticism About Doing Little For Syrian Refugees
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/20/441457924/gulf-states-fend-off-criticism-about-doing-little-for-syrian-refugees
The Atlantic
Migrant Crisis: Where Have the Gulf States Been?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/refugees-migrant-crisis-arab-countries/404203/
HuffPo
No, Arab Gulf Countries Are Not Taking in Refugees
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaker-khazaal/no-arab-gulf-countries-ar_b_8280448.html
USA Today:
Why the Arab States wont take in Syrian refugees: Column
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/04/why-arab-states-wont-take-syrian-refugees-column/72747230/
Time:
Why Some Arabs States Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees
http://time.com/4025187/arab-states-syrian-refugees/
CNN:
Refugee crisis: Why aren't Gulf states taking them in?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/gulf-states-syrian-refugee-crisis/
Sydney Morning Herald
Refugee crisis: why aren't the rich Gulf Arab states doing more?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/migrant-crisis-why-arent-the-rich-gulf-arab-states-doing-more-20150909-gjj1hn.html#ixzz47nSZ63ys
pampango
(24,692 posts)in resettling the refugees.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)to punish countries that refuse to help share the burden of other members. It's not an estimate of how much it costs to take a refugee.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Poland and Hungary have already said they will refuse to pay the fine.
Gungnir
(242 posts)...
Most of the building blocks for an effective asylum system are available; they only need to be assembled into a comprehensive and coherent policy. Critically, refugees and the countries that contain them in the Middle East must receive enough financial support to make their lives there viable, allowing them to work and to send their children to school. That would help to keep the inflow of refugees to a level that Europe can absorb. This can be accomplished by establishing a firm and reliable target for the number of refugee arrivals: between 300,000 and 500,000 per year. This number is large enough to give refugees the assurance that many of them can eventually seek refuge in Europe, yet small enough to be accommodated by European governments even in the current unfavorable political climate.
...
At least 30 billion ($34 billion) a year will be needed for the EU to carry out such a comprehensive plan. This includes providing Turkey and other frontline countries with adequate funding to maintain their very large refugee populations, creating a common EU asylum agency and security force for the EUs external borders, addressing the humanitarian chaos in Greece, and establishing common standards across the Union for receiving and integrating refugees.
...
At maximum number of refugees:
$43,000,000,000/500,000Refugees/yr = $86,000/yr/refugee (Best case)
At minimum number of refugees:
$34,000,000,000/300,000refugees/yr = $143,333/yr/refugee
I think if we gave each refugee family of 4 a one time payment of $573,332 they would able stabilize their country. And it would still be a lot cheaper than the best case of $344,000/ yr/ family of 4 that it will require to keep them outside of their country.
Then maybe we should do the same for each American...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Right after what you put in bold, there's:
" This includes providing Turkey and other frontline countries with adequate funding to maintain their very large refugee populations, creating a common EU asylum agency and security force for the EUs external borders, addressing the humanitarian chaos in Greece, and establishing common standards across the Union for receiving and integrating refugees. "
It's always worth reading the whole paragraph before you start the arithmetic. The cost Soros estimated is for far more than just the living costs for the refugees that EU countries would take.
"I think if we gave each refugee family of 4 a one time payment of $573,332 they would able stabilize their country. "
No, that's not how wars work. You can't just put money in private individuals' hands, tell them to stay put, and expect them to become invulnerable to bombs. You can sometimes bribe the fighters to stop.
Gungnir
(242 posts)and the other cost are distributed around to housing, food, etc. But the total cost is still per student that I have to pay.
Or am I not understanding it correctly?
Enjoying the conversation, will have to pick up later tonight
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Soros was talking about the cost including supporting the refugees in Turkey and other 'frontline' countries (Lebanon, Jordan), of whom there are several million.