Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Wednesday his country vetoed the EU's budget over plans to tie funding to respect for the rule of law, as it amounted to "blackmailing" countries that oppose migration.
Read more at:
Hungary says it blocked EU budget over migration 'blackmail'
The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living
Showing posts with label Migration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Migration. Show all posts
November 19, 2020
September 23, 2019
European Migration Agreement:
Key EU countries agree on sea migrant redistribution scheme
Read more at:
https://p.dw.com/p/3Q6GI
https://p.dw.com/p/3Q6GI
Support EU-Digest, Almere-Digest, Insure-Digest which have reported the news without any political affiliation since 2004, and opposes those
who seek to discredit and even destroy news organizations who believe
in the right of a free Press. You can do that by investing in an advertisement in EU-Digest, or by
giving a donation to keep our efforts going : to donate or advertise and pay by credit card,
click on: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf
August 29, 2019
Migration Policy EU: - While EU split on migration widens - by Jess Smee
Illegal immigration poses an ongoing political crisis for the
European bloc and politicians' failure to act has left Europeans
reportedly more concerned about immigration than climate change.
Will November's change of leadership in the European Commission help improve its track record on the humanitarian emergency?
Large numbers of migrants continued to arrive on European shores this summer and hundreds of people died en route so far this year.
But while immigration dominates the headlines, Europe is divided on how to respond, meaning that the issue tops the to-do list for incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Pressure is rising on Europe to take a firm stance on the extended emergency.
In August, Greece underscored its calls for the EU to share the burden of new arrivals amid a sharp increase in migrants landing on Greek islands in recent weeks.
Deputy minister for citizen protection Giorgios Koumoutsakos even warned that the country had "exhausted its capacity" to cope with the newcomers - and called on the rest of Europe for help.
And as well as loud complaints from the front-line nations, Europe is struggling to bridge increasingly polarised political positions on immigration.
Read more at: EU split on migration widens
Support EU-Digest which reports the news as it is and buy an advertisement, or give a donation to keep us going : click on https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf
Will November's change of leadership in the European Commission help improve its track record on the humanitarian emergency?
Large numbers of migrants continued to arrive on European shores this summer and hundreds of people died en route so far this year.
But while immigration dominates the headlines, Europe is divided on how to respond, meaning that the issue tops the to-do list for incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Pressure is rising on Europe to take a firm stance on the extended emergency.
In August, Greece underscored its calls for the EU to share the burden of new arrivals amid a sharp increase in migrants landing on Greek islands in recent weeks.
Deputy minister for citizen protection Giorgios Koumoutsakos even warned that the country had "exhausted its capacity" to cope with the newcomers - and called on the rest of Europe for help.
And as well as loud complaints from the front-line nations, Europe is struggling to bridge increasingly polarised political positions on immigration.
Read more at: EU split on migration widens
Support EU-Digest which reports the news as it is and buy an advertisement, or give a donation to keep us going : click on https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf
July 29, 2019
EU-Migration Policies: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits : by Jonathan Portes
Migrants don’t steal jobs or bring down wages. Rather, they’re more likely to bring dynamism and prosperity
our years ago, Europeans were shocked by the photograph of the drowned three-year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi. Now, Americans are similarly horrified by pictures of El Salvadorans Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Angie Valeria, dead on the banks of the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, in the UK we are struggling with what our immigration policy should look like after Brexit, with Boris Johnson trying to have his cake and eat it with the promise of an “Australian-style points system”.
Few subjects are more politically charged than immigration. However, like free trade, it unites most economists, regardless of their politics. Immigrants don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much impact on wages. Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.
More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is generally positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.
The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single country in Europe having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” – population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix, will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.
If the economic benefits are clear, what explains the recent political backlash? What is the connection between the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of far-right populists in continental Europe? A decade on from the financial crisis, the political foundations of the postwar (and post-cold-war) liberal order appear to be crumbling.
But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes, the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US, Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme. In western European countries such as Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.
Twitter is full of lunatics who talk about “race replacement” or “white genocide”. But more respectable versions of much the same argument can be found in the mainstream press. London’s population is no longer majority “white British”, but most of us were born in the UK and even more identify as British (white, black, Asian or mixed) and have British citizenship. Nevertheless, the eminent economist Paul Collier claims that the “indigenous British [have] become a minority in their own capital”. Spectator writer Douglas Murray, who argues for reducing or eliminating Muslim immigration, says London has become a “foreign country”. Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist and author of Whiteshift, suggests that we should favour immigrants from ethnic or cultural backgrounds who are easier to “assimilate” into the white majority. The favourite philosopher of some Conservatives, Roger Scruton, thinks it’s impossible for the (British-born) children of Muslim immigrants to be loyal British citizens. So the view that only white people can be “really” British, and that black or Asian Britons are still somehow alien and threatening, remains prevalent in some elite circles.
Some argue that if progressive politicians fail to accommodate these views, they will drive their traditional voters to the populist right. But there’s little evidence that this will help those most vulnerable to the lure of rightwing populism or improve public perceptions of immigration. Instead, countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Spain have combined relatively open policies with public consent by building a pro-migration coalition across much of the political spectrum.
Germany offers a particularly striking example. Amid the panic about the refugee influx in 2015, I wrote that it was an opportunity more than a threat. But many argued that it would be impossible, economically, socially or politically, to absorb so many people from supposedly “alien” cultures. But three years on, while far from perfect, the balance sheet appears mostly positive. Refugees are learning German and getting jobs. Although the far right continues to try to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, crime is at its lowest level in almost 30 years.
Brexit, paradoxically, offers a window of opportunity. The most illiberal and restrictionist prime minister in living memory is about to depart. Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years. Both Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, as well as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, have signalled that they want an immigration policy better attuned to the needs of the UK economy.
Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let it slip away.
Read more: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits | Jonathan Port
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
our years ago, Europeans were shocked by the photograph of the drowned three-year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi. Now, Americans are similarly horrified by pictures of El Salvadorans Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Angie Valeria, dead on the banks of the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, in the UK we are struggling with what our immigration policy should look like after Brexit, with Boris Johnson trying to have his cake and eat it with the promise of an “Australian-style points system”.
Few subjects are more politically charged than immigration. However, like free trade, it unites most economists, regardless of their politics. Immigrants don’t take our jobs, nor do they have much impact on wages. Just look at the UK, where sustained high levels of immigration have coincided with unemployment falling to its lowest level in 40 years.
More importantly, immigration makes economies more dynamic and is generally positive for productivity and prosperity. Even legitimate concerns about “brain drain” from developing countries turn out to be exaggerated, with such countries often gaining from remittances and new economic connections.
The economic and political forces driving immigration are only likely to intensify, in both Europe and the rest of the developed world. They will be powered by “demand” – demographic pressures, with every single country in Europe having a fertility rate below replacement level – and “supply” – population growth in developing countries, especially in Africa, and perhaps climate change. So the number of people seeking to move countries, whether through economic migration, refugee flows or a mix, will continue to grow. At the same time, we will need migration; even Japan, long resistant, has recently begun to liberalise policy.
If the economic benefits are clear, what explains the recent political backlash? What is the connection between the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the rise of far-right populists in continental Europe? A decade on from the financial crisis, the political foundations of the postwar (and post-cold-war) liberal order appear to be crumbling.
But while anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment are common themes, the circumstances of individual countries are very different. In the US, Trump’s focus is on irregular migration from Mexico and Central America and its supposed impact on crime and security, although there is little or no evidence, in the US or elsewhere, to substantiate his claims. In the UK, the ostensible focus of the Brexit campaign was on EU free movement, predominantly by white eastern Europeans, although future migration from Turkey and points farther east was also a strong theme. In western European countries such as Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, rightwing populists were boosted by public reaction to refugee and migrant flows from Syria and Africa. And in Poland and Hungary, while immigrant flows are extremely small, parties in power have successfully appealed to nationalist sentiments by focusing on the threat of Muslim immigration overrunning “Christian” Europe.
Twitter is full of lunatics who talk about “race replacement” or “white genocide”. But more respectable versions of much the same argument can be found in the mainstream press. London’s population is no longer majority “white British”, but most of us were born in the UK and even more identify as British (white, black, Asian or mixed) and have British citizenship. Nevertheless, the eminent economist Paul Collier claims that the “indigenous British [have] become a minority in their own capital”. Spectator writer Douglas Murray, who argues for reducing or eliminating Muslim immigration, says London has become a “foreign country”. Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist and author of Whiteshift, suggests that we should favour immigrants from ethnic or cultural backgrounds who are easier to “assimilate” into the white majority. The favourite philosopher of some Conservatives, Roger Scruton, thinks it’s impossible for the (British-born) children of Muslim immigrants to be loyal British citizens. So the view that only white people can be “really” British, and that black or Asian Britons are still somehow alien and threatening, remains prevalent in some elite circles.
Some argue that if progressive politicians fail to accommodate these views, they will drive their traditional voters to the populist right. But there’s little evidence that this will help those most vulnerable to the lure of rightwing populism or improve public perceptions of immigration. Instead, countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Spain have combined relatively open policies with public consent by building a pro-migration coalition across much of the political spectrum.
Germany offers a particularly striking example. Amid the panic about the refugee influx in 2015, I wrote that it was an opportunity more than a threat. But many argued that it would be impossible, economically, socially or politically, to absorb so many people from supposedly “alien” cultures. But three years on, while far from perfect, the balance sheet appears mostly positive. Refugees are learning German and getting jobs. Although the far right continues to try to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, crime is at its lowest level in almost 30 years.
Brexit, paradoxically, offers a window of opportunity. The most illiberal and restrictionist prime minister in living memory is about to depart. Public concern about immigration has fallen sharply and attitudes towards its effects are more positive than for many years. Both Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, as well as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, have signalled that they want an immigration policy better attuned to the needs of the UK economy.
Politicians could make the case for liberal policy not just on economic grounds but much more broadly, defending the rights of immigrants, eg EU citizens resident in the UK, UK-born children of immigrants who are denied British citizenship, UK citizens who marry people from abroad, and so on. This would also include a more positive approach to the impacts of immigration on communities and services at a local level – by promoting integration and channelling funding to areas where there are pressures resulting from population growth. There is a chance for a “reset moment” not just in policy but in our wider public and political attitudes to immigration and immigrants: we should not let it slip away.
Read more: Tragedy is inevitable if we fear migration rather than celebrate its benefits | Jonathan Port
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
November 20, 2018
EU: Migration Into Europe: A Long-Term Solution? - by Branko Milanovic
Why has migration become such a big problem? Many reasons can be
adduced: the war in Syria, the integration of Eastern Europe, lack of
new jobs in many Western countries following the Global Financial Crisis
etc. But listing individual reasons is insufficient to understand it
and think what to do about it.
The origin of the problem, in most general terms, is twofold: (1) globalization that has made the knowledge of differences in income between countries much better known and has reduced the cost of transportation, and (2) large gaps in real incomes between the European Union (especially its more prosperous North) and the Middle East and Africa.
The first point is well known. Many studies show that the more people know about the rest of the world (especially if that rest of the world is richer than their country) the more they compare their own standard of living with that of presumed peers in the richer countries, and the more likely they are to do something about it: namely, to migrate.
The second point has to do with the fact that the gap in GDP per capita between the original EU-15 and sub-Saharan Africa has risen from seven to one in 1980 to 11 to one today. (This is the gap obtained after factoring in the lower price level in Africa; without it, the gap would be even greater.)
At the same time as real incomes have become so unbalanced, population growth rates have become even more so. In 1980, the EU-15 had more people than sub-Saharan Africa; today, sub-Saharan Africa has twice-and-a-half as many people.
Within the next two generations, sub-Saharan Africa should reach 2.5 billion people, five times more than Western Europe. It is totally unrealistic to think that such large income gaps (in one direction) and population gaps (in the other) can persist without generating a very strong migration pressure.
Thus, Europe faces a long-term issue and the following dilemma. As we just saw, if there is globalization and countries involved in globalization have highly uneven incomes, there must be migration. You can stop migration only if you give up on globalization by closing off national borders, or help emitting countries get as rich as Western Europe. The latter would obviously take, under the best of circumstances, at least a century. So, it is not a feasible solution. What then remains is to shut down globalization, at least when it comes to the movement of people.
Read more: Migration Into Europe: A Long-Term Solution? • Social Europe
The origin of the problem, in most general terms, is twofold: (1) globalization that has made the knowledge of differences in income between countries much better known and has reduced the cost of transportation, and (2) large gaps in real incomes between the European Union (especially its more prosperous North) and the Middle East and Africa.
The first point is well known. Many studies show that the more people know about the rest of the world (especially if that rest of the world is richer than their country) the more they compare their own standard of living with that of presumed peers in the richer countries, and the more likely they are to do something about it: namely, to migrate.
The second point has to do with the fact that the gap in GDP per capita between the original EU-15 and sub-Saharan Africa has risen from seven to one in 1980 to 11 to one today. (This is the gap obtained after factoring in the lower price level in Africa; without it, the gap would be even greater.)
At the same time as real incomes have become so unbalanced, population growth rates have become even more so. In 1980, the EU-15 had more people than sub-Saharan Africa; today, sub-Saharan Africa has twice-and-a-half as many people.
Within the next two generations, sub-Saharan Africa should reach 2.5 billion people, five times more than Western Europe. It is totally unrealistic to think that such large income gaps (in one direction) and population gaps (in the other) can persist without generating a very strong migration pressure.
Thus, Europe faces a long-term issue and the following dilemma. As we just saw, if there is globalization and countries involved in globalization have highly uneven incomes, there must be migration. You can stop migration only if you give up on globalization by closing off national borders, or help emitting countries get as rich as Western Europe. The latter would obviously take, under the best of circumstances, at least a century. So, it is not a feasible solution. What then remains is to shut down globalization, at least when it comes to the movement of people.
Read more: Migration Into Europe: A Long-Term Solution? • Social Europe
June 30, 2018
EU Summit: Migrant Processing, Cooperation: as EU Members reach a deal on migrants early Saturday 29/6 morning
'Italy is not alone anymore': EU leaders reach agreement on migrant processing
Read full report at::
Shared via the CBC News Android App
June 15, 2018
French - Italian relations: MIGRATION DISPUTE HEATS UP
Via euronews: Migration dispute escalates between France and Italy
For the full report go to:
February 25, 2018
Post Brexit EU Budget: EU agrees budget to focus on defence, security and migration - by Eszter Zalan
After leaders held their preliminary discussion of the first post-Brexit budget, Tusk told reporters that many European heads of government were ready to contribute more money to the next budget cycle, that runs 2021-27.
"All the leaders approached [the budget] with open minds, rather than red lines," he stated.
Tusk however said that the EU Commission's ambitious deadline for reaching an agreement by the end of this year seemed "really difficult".
The EU executive wants to conclude talks by the next European elections in May 2019, however, haggling over the budget usually takes more than two years.
Germany's Angela Merkel said the debate was "constructive", and said leaders will decide how fast to move with agreeing to the EU budget after the commission's proposal will be published in May.
The German chancellor also warned cuts will have to be made to "bureaucratic" policies, like agriculture.
One of the countries that does not want to pay more after the UK leaves the EU, the Netherlands' PM Mark Rutte, said the bloc needs to modernise and reform existing programs to finds more money.
"We, in any case, do not want our contribution to rise," he said.
EU leaders also discussed the possibility of linking EU funds to migration and respecting the rule of law.
Donald Tusk told reporters the discussion was less toxic than many had speculated in the run up to the summit.
Member states that benefit from cohesion funds earlier warned against using EU money aimed for reducing economic differences across the EU for integrating migrants or for punishing countries that breach EU rules.
After the discussions Tusk said that he had only heard "positive reactions", and that the concept was not questioned by any leader who spoke.
Tusk said that Poland's premier Mateusz Morawiecki also said he was ready to support conditionality, adding that it should be built a very objective criteria.
"The possible conditionality was less controversial than expected," Tusk said - adding that the debate at this point was very general.
France's president Emmanuel Macron had a strong warning to those who infringe EU values, something Poland had been accused of by the commission.
"It would be matter of good sense to halt the payment of some [EU] funds where is there is a breach of our values," Macron said.
Read more: EU agrees budget to focus on defence, security and migration
December 20, 2017
EU Migration Problems: Former PM Mikuláš Dzurinda of Slovakia "EU must seek solution for migration outside its borders" – by Lucia Yar
The solution to the migration crisis is beyond the European Union
borders and the EU must be prepared to talk to all relevant players in
troubled countries and provide financial and logistical help, the former
prime minister of Slovakia told EURACTIV.
It is necessary to act. When I say that agreements with relevant players are needed, these agreements should be directed in such a way that they don’t create modern concentration camps where people are raped and abused. The conditions in centres in which people spend the time needed for an asylum procedure must be dignified.
I do not feel nervous that some accents are now different in Warsaw or Budapest. Rather the opposite, the accents should be understood. Sometimes even the Slovaks could be interpreting them in Brussels or Paris.
Not everything that Orbán or Kaczynski say is foolish. Yet, the degree of centralisation worries me. I often feel that the European administration in Brussels interferes with the member states’ competence and that they are barely consulted.
All of these processes need to be seen very soberly, and the Visegrad Four needs to be cultivated. It does not need to be pushed to the position of a breaker. It should become a unifier.
Read more: Dzurinda: EU must seek solution for migration outside its borders – EURACTIV.com
It is necessary to act. When I say that agreements with relevant players are needed, these agreements should be directed in such a way that they don’t create modern concentration camps where people are raped and abused. The conditions in centres in which people spend the time needed for an asylum procedure must be dignified.
I do not feel nervous that some accents are now different in Warsaw or Budapest. Rather the opposite, the accents should be understood. Sometimes even the Slovaks could be interpreting them in Brussels or Paris.
Not everything that Orbán or Kaczynski say is foolish. Yet, the degree of centralisation worries me. I often feel that the European administration in Brussels interferes with the member states’ competence and that they are barely consulted.
All of these processes need to be seen very soberly, and the Visegrad Four needs to be cultivated. It does not need to be pushed to the position of a breaker. It should become a unifier.
Read more: Dzurinda: EU must seek solution for migration outside its borders – EURACTIV.com
July 5, 2017
The Netherlands - Migration: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands
People joining their
families was the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands in
2015, the Dutch statistics service announced on Monday.
The CBS says that a third of the 159,000 people who migrated to the
country in 2015 came to join family members already here.
In 2003, half came for this reason, although since the number of
migrants has increased, this figure was 36,655 compared with 51,920 in
2015.
There was a dramatic rise in asylum-related migration in 2015, to almost
27,000, but more people actually moved to the Netherlands for work that
year, and almost 20,000 came to study.
Most of those joining their families came from Poland, Syria, Germany,
India and the UK in 2015. The figures exclude people of Dutch
nationality moving to the country.
Read more at DutchNews.nl: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/07/family-is-the-biggest-reason-for-migration-to-the-netherlands/
People joining their families was the biggest reason for migration to
the Netherlands in 2015, the Dutch statistics service announced on
Monday. The CBS says that a third of the 159,000 people who migrated to
the country in 2015 came to join family members already here.Read more at DutchNews.nl: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/07/family-is-the-biggest-reason-for-migration-to-the-netherlands/
In 2003, half came for this reason, although since the number of migrants has increased, this figure was 36,655 compared with 51,920 in 2015.
There was a dramatic rise in asylum-related migration in 2015, to almost 27,000, but more people actually moved to the Netherlands for work that year, and almost 20,000 came to study.
Most of those joining their families came from Poland, Syria, Germany, India and the UK in 2015. The figures exclude people of Dutch nationality moving to the country.
Read more: Family is the biggest reason for migration to the Netherlands - DutchNews.nl
September 19, 2016
Britain: British views on Migration Classing With Those of The EU
Theresa May is driving a wedge between the UK and the EU on migration
http://flip.it/m8gUBr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)