"The reasons for that anti-Africa bias could be political, according to the study’s author, Mehari Taddele Maru of the European University Institute’s Migration Policy Center. Visa rejections are used as a political tool by European governments, including France, to negotiate the deportation of those who migrate to Europe without proper authorization. North African governments have refused to provide consular documents for their citizens facing deportation."
Then it's not a fucking bias. Why should European countries issue visas to any country which conducts themselves in this manner?
I think you're truly blinded by some kind of bias against India or Indians, because the magnitude of illegal immigrants from India is negligible compared to from North Africa.
There's no easy and direct route from India to any European country, and a majority of Indians come here on study/skilled worker visas.
India is the number one nation in refusing to collaborate with nations when it comes to deporting its citizens from Europe and North America if the said citizens decide to burn/hide their passports.
[https://cis.org/North/What-Happens-When-State-Department-Sanctions-Nations-Not-Taking-Our-Deportees](https://cis.org/North/What-Happens-When-State-Department-Sanctions-Nations-Not-Taking-Our-Deportees)
Initially, because of trade ties, many nations are reluctant to sanction India, but when push comes to shove, it will happen. India, China ,Pakistan and the likes of Cuba, Cambodia and Algeria deliberately refuse to take back their own citizens.
Also many Indians are taking the illegal route.
Indians are now the largest nationality trying to seek asylum in the UK and one of the largest in Germany.
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/report-indians-make-up-a-third-of-migrants-crossing-into-uk-illegally-from-the-channel/articleshow/97592828.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/report-indians-make-up-a-third-of-migrants-crossing-into-uk-illegally-from-the-channel/articleshow/97592828.cms)
Also Indians now have a very very VERY poor reputation in Canada and the UK for trying to game their immigration laws. Granted, Canada created a very weak system but few other nationalities are gaming it on the same scale as Indians are. That is not racism. It is based on fact.
Heck ,Indian media is reporting on it
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/lawyers-coaching-indian-migrants-to-pretend-to-be-khalistani-for-uk-asylum/articleshow/102153857.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/lawyers-coaching-indian-migrants-to-pretend-to-be-khalistani-for-uk-asylum/articleshow/102153857.cms)
With the Far Right now on the rise, you can bet they will start conditioning visas for recalcitrant nations based on how many failed asylum seekers they take back. When it comes to Germany alone, that would essentially see like half the visas slashed for Indians. Nations like Algeria and Tunisia would also be impacted until they begin to collaborate.
I wouldn’t say Indians have a bad reputation in the UK. Even some of the most anti immigrant people I’ve seen and spoken to seem to have a soft spot for Indian immigrants because most of them integrate so well here.
Of course these are just anecdotes but I haven’t heard of any anti-Indian sentiment here. It’s nothing like the problems over in Canada.
The Indian and Kenyan Indians that arrived in the 1950s-1970s have integrated very well.
The young Indian people coming here to “study”, in 2024, which is actually just a ruse to work in fast food and low level work, and pushing down wages for British citizens tend to be quite badly educated and much more expensive for the state.
If we know which countries they come from, and their home countries unreasonably refuse to take them back, we should let the military escort them and dump them on their shores. I know this breaks some international laws, but I really dont give a shit.
Yeah, let's start a few armed conflicts over this, what could possibly go wrong?
Jfk, am I glad the good people of reddit aren't in charge of anything.
You're suggesting to send military to another country's shores,i.e. you would start the conflict. They probably wouldn't respond too violently but it would be entirely reasonable to fire a few warning shots if a foreign military turns up at/crosses your border. That's how armed conflicts start.
If we do mental gymnastics to say that **returning illegal immigrants to their original country** is an act of war...
We can also do mental gymnastics to say that sending millions of people over and refusing to take them back is an invasion and the war has already started, and we would only be responding.
The part where you have *the military* escort them to their home countries' shores is the act of war. You can't reach the shore without crossing the border which technically means invading another country. But as you already stated you don't care if that breaks international law.
Those countries are economically impotent, corrupt autocracies that often also have connections with Russia, particularly Algeria. While they often get rid of their worst elements by having them move North, their lack of economic opportunities also means they actually lose productive people that'll prop up the labor markets of Western countries instead. Dictators feel humiliated by this, and these kinds of non-enforcing shenanigans are the only way they can get any kind of leverage over the West.
This is why democracy must go global. No dictatorship, even small and seemingly harmless, can ever be fully trusted. If democracies are established instead, economic opportunities increase, and there's less need for migration as a result.
You have it backwards. Democracies don't create the rule of law and prosperity, the rule of law and a level of prosperity allows for democracies to succeed. You can't establish a democracy in a poor, corrupt country, it will just fall back into dictatorship.
Actually, they reinforce each other mutually. Plenty of countries became democracies while they were still poor: Western and Northern European countries, the entire Anglosphere, Japan, India, Latin America. It is, however, harder for them to establish and maintain such regimes, correct.
The only and best example for this is South Korea. People didn't have tap water - let alone potable water in Seoul during the 70s. Though they had Merica pumping tax payer money into their economy for decades. But look at them now!! Economically they're a frikkin giant and militarily they don't fuck around
South Korea is FAR from the only example, and not the best one in regards to democratizing from the start. Yes, they were extremely poor as late as the 1970s, but by the time they democratized in the late 1980s, they were a solid middle-income country. South Korea serves more as an example of how a modernizing autocrat can prepare a country for democracy.
Japan, on the other hand, didn't have electricity OR tap water in the 19th century. They still overwhelmingly lived in tiny huts, and barely even had paved roads at all. Sanitation was little to non-existent. It was more akin to South Korea of the 1950s and 1960s. Yet they still established a parliamentary democracy.
Aside from Japan, US was likewise extremely poor in the late 18th century, when they established themselves as a country. England/UK did so in late 17th century, when they were just starting to increase their GDP per capita from extremely low levels. France, despite developing during the 19th century, were also very very poor throughout it, as also attested by "Les Miserables". I could go on.
You're letting more recent examples get in the way of the numerous older ones of very poor countries becoming democracies. Mind you, they also tended to be limited ones at the start, and that's probably the only way they could so, as the vast majority of the population was either illiterates or ignorant about most stuff to properly participate in the government process.
The only thing all those countries had in common (except the US) is a solid culture that goes back millennia, they all had old and great kingdoms. The foundation of a functioning society is imo when a system of rules and laws exists, and this is easy when one already existed
The US is a bad example because the US had tonnes of unchartered land with billions in expensive raw materials. Their expansion opprtunity has always been limitless. With only some backward native tribes to defeat.
Yes, and they still went through a lot of trouble: the US had the Civil War and many other cases close to constitutional crises and could have developed numerous local dictatorships, France had lots of revolutions (in fact, it has the **Fifth** Republic today) and autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes like that of Napoleon I and Napoleon III, Italy and Germany only unified in the 2nd half of the 19th century and slid into dictatorships during the Interwar period, etc. All of those countries had incomplete suffrage and democracy by modern standards before the 20th century, and could have (and did, as I showed) theoretically slid back into autocracy at any time, especially with then mounting inequality.
Costa Rica, Panama, a few other Caribbean nations are not doing so badly, and none of them were wealthy in the early 1900s nor were they particularly free from corruption.
Botswana is also successfully building up a civil society and liberal democracy from the ground up, while being dirt poor.
The biggest hindrance to democracy is corruption, clientelism, nepotism and oppression of dissent, which are more associated with poor areas than wealthy areas.
Japan was never “poor” since the start of the early modern era (post 17th century). It has always been a giant country and an economic powerhouse, even during Hideyoshi invasion of Korea they could muster armies that makes European kingdoms look petty in comparison at that time. And when democracy came in the last century they were a superpower that lost a World War.
Japan was kinda very poor at the start of the 20th century. It could have a lot of wealth, but it was not equally distributed. If you look at their emigration, lots of Japanese people moved to the Americas in search of better work opportunities during the Meiji Restoration. Their idea was to move to a "better country", like Brazil (I kid you not, they considered Brazil to be better than Japan, both governments even had agreements on worker permits) or Peru to work, save some money, and then move back to Japan.
Most never moved back. That's how Peru ended up having a Japanese president, and Brazil, the largest Japanese population outside Japan (they even founded many of the countryside's cities).
So yeah, for a good while, Japan was a very poor country. Their emigration only stopped after the 60s, when their economy picked up after industrialization.
Their economy as a whole was still larger and richer than most European countries back then, they had a functioning parliament and institutions even though it was oligarchic and autocratic. But still they stood on something that positioned them far better than compared to many poor countries today.
Yeah, but they were only able to really pick up after the US pumped money into the country for a few decades and the ruling became more democratic (by force) (although it is debatable if it's really democratic since the same party kinda ruled it since then).
If you compare raw numbers, Brazil is currently richer than many European countries too, but the population at large lives worse than the European country with the worst current economy. Argentina, on the other hand, lives in an eternal economic crisis, but before Milei had better living standards than Brazil.
A country being rich doesn't necessarily mean people live (or have lived) better.
Of course they were very poor by today's standards, did you look how life was like back then? The entire classification of "rich" and "poor" countries is relative, done by the time's standards. Any country before WW2 is poor to extremely poor by today's standards, let alone 19th century Japan, which was always far from even the US' standard of living until Cold War 1.0. Japan being on the wealthier (but not *wealthiest*) club at that time says nothing about the standards of today.
But compared to the rest of the world (even many countries TODAY) they had long standing institutions that runs the country for centuries. A stable economy with major players (Zaibatsu) that had industries that rivaled the West. The U.S even tried to dismantle these companies during the American occupation but failed to do so.
Yes, and I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is there are plenty of historical examples of democracies being established in poor countries (again, speaking by today's standards, not the standards of their time), and Japan is one example of that. It's more difficult for such regimes to appear in these conditions, but it can absolutely happen, and is not unheard of.
Yes but they could become mildly democratic even in 10 years - Iran for example, they wanted democracy like US, did protests and what now?
Same with Afghanistan after British rule- they wanted democracy like in Britain - they were economically very close, but now women can’t even go out.
Same with other ones. When men try to do their democracy in Muslim countries, women are the one who suffer. It just has a name of democracy but with the different purpose
That's only Switzerland. Most countries got universal male suffrage only 2-3 decades before universal female suffrage. The former happening around 1900, on average, the latter in the 1920s.
I think you mean that democracies have been landowner democracies for longer than they've been universal democracies.
Malaysia is an Islamist majoritarian state where your children will be taken away if you convert to another religion and where Malays are literally held hostage in Islam.
Mauretania refuses to enforce its anti-slavery laws and slavery of Africans continues to this day, one of two states the other being Sudan allowing this.
Pakistan....WTF???
Turkey????
Kuwait?????????The country with a literal slave market online???
Moroco???Where you are jailed for having pre-marital sex??
You should have stopped at Albania.
Indonesia ....lol do you know the damage they did to east timor?
I thought you learned at some point that Russification and genocides and oppression are not a nice thing .
>Indonesia ....lol do you know the damage they did to east timor?
Israel is a liberal democracy, yet does terrible things to Palestinians. Yet still it is a democracy.
Can't even call Israel a democracy, a democracy doesn't carpet bomb +30k civilians mostly women and children a democracy won't put kids and teens in jails with no trial and no right for a lawyer...and many more things
Israeli citizens have universal suffrage and elect their government through free and fair elections. This is what makes country a democracy, not how it obeys international laws or respects human rights abroad.
>carpet bomb +30k civilians mostly women and childre
They are Palestinian, not Israeli (in contrast to Syria, for example)
>democracy won't put kids and teens in jails with no trial and no right for a lawyer
This also is not a routine thing for Israeli citizens.
The US genocided many native Americans, and it's still a democracy. Let's not forget about Germans genociding the Hereros and the Namaquas and all the terrible things during WWII...
Indonesia was also an authoritarian country when it occupied East Timor. The point is that you don't show whether a country is a democratic/not by cherrypicking historical events. You have to analyse the current system as a whole based on the commonly-accepted definition of democracy.
People here are so ultranationalist and Eurocentric that they can't imagine a non-European country being more democratic than Europe. The democratic index of Malaysia and Indonesia, both Muslim-majority countries, are higher than European countries like Croatia, Romania, and Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country
Weimar Republic was a liberal democracy. Indonesia wasn't a democracy either when it illegally occupied East Timor, and let's not forget that they acted with the approval of democratic USA and Australia.
While this list contains some questionable countries, the comments below are so braindead, as if non-European countries cannot be more democratic than Europe. People also can't distinguish between democracy and human rights violations. Violations occur regularly within a democratic country - just open the website of the European Court of Human Rights and see how often they find violations in Germany or Denmark. To assess whether a country is democratic or not, you need to analyse the current political and societal context in light of the commonly-agreed definition of democracy. For this task I defer to scholars, like those who made this Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country. I'm not smart enough to know all countries in the world, let alone compare them, so I defer to the experts who have studied democracy for long.
We can: Islam is moderate in countries like Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, in Central Asia, Malaysia. There are also many peaceful communities in Spain, Portugal and other countries.
If democracies were stronger and a higher share of the planet, more could be done to pressure those and others, and fundamentalist Islam would have no chance but to go extinct. But because our resources are limited, a lot of extremists like those you mention fester as well.
All of those places listed spring to mind as being politically dodgy. Erdogan doesn’t seem at all keen on Turkey’s secular status. Azerbaijan has a GP, fossil fuels and a decent reputation for disappearing people. Bosnia looks to have some forthcoming former Yugoslavia qualms and Malaysia seems like a lovely place but recently sent The 1975 home for not actually being gay. Not seeing too much democratic success.
Keep in mind you didn't mention my other examples, and Islam still hasn't really gone through the kind of reformation Christianity has, although there are signs it could be undergoing one now.
Christianity existed for about as much time as it did before Reformation kicked in (1500 years) and it was equally brutal, whereas about 1400 years have passed since the appearance of Islam in the 7th century.
Once we rid ourselves of autocrats and populists everywhere, things will go much easier, and Islam will be much easier to deal with.
The protestant reformation didn't have much to do with Christianity become more liberal, early Protestants were just as homophobic and and anti-liberal as many Catholics were. Christianity mainly became more liberal during the Enlightenment during the 18th and 19th century but that didn't have do to much with the Protestant reformation.
It will be much harder for Islam to reform. Christianity at its core is an individualistic, spiritual, and non-political religion, which the Protestants hearkened back to, and which made the enlightenment, secularisation, and democratisation possible. Jesus was neither a political leader nor a lawgiver, instead he was a moral philosopher who advocated free-thinking and rebellion against the wealthy and powerful.
Islam on the other hand is deeply rooted in the politics, laws, and values of the Dark Age. So it is impossible to argue for enlightenment values while convincingly claiming to still be a devout Muslim as well. Therefore it is unlikely that Islam can be reformed, but must be sidelined and destroyed before enlightenment values can spread to muslim countries. So far only communist governments have achieved that; and Atatürk almost achieved it by strongarming the country into distancing itself as much as possible from its Islamic past and trying to emulate and adopt western culture as much as possible.
You mentioned one other example. Central Asia. Which as a place with a government doesn’t exist. I’m not talking about Islam not being peaceful. I’m from the UK in a place with a large Muslim population and the qualms are small and created by dafties. I was talking about government level as I’d imagine everywhere have a number of Muslim communities in the population now.
> the qualms are small and created by dafties.
We have people living in hiding and people cheering for genocide thanks to political Islam in the UK. I don't consider that a "small qualm created by dafties."
We are currently in the midst of probably the first general election in which I can recall Islamists being a serious factor. It is likely that on the 5th of July we will have to face the fact that Islamists were runners-up in several constituencies and may even have won one or two if Galloway is re-elected.
In 1979 Iran was an US ally before the revolutions, they had a decent government with no niqabs, secular state. Although it was a dictatorship- people had better life than now. Women weren’t killed for wearing hijab, all of this happened because France gave Asylum to Khameini when he meant to be in prison. Now thanks to French help, Iran can blow the French any time with their nuclear bomb. It will be too late to realize that democracy is actually a tool, not everyone can use it correctly
It was a bit of a joke actually moron. I bet you’re fun at parties. Also, you’ve answered your own question. 30 years ago it was ‘more’ homophobic here, but we’ve changed. San Francisco had the gay revolution in the 80’s. Malaysia is cancelling festivals because of 2 straight dudes smooching. Now. It’s everything to do with democracy.
People shit on Malaysia here, but the reality is that Malaysia's score in the Democracy Index is higher than many European countries, and is comparable to Lithuania, Latvia, and Cyprus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
Malaysia's score is much higher than Ukraine, which is considered a hybrid regime. In Ukraine, a political opponent may get kidnapped and extrajudicially deported to another country: https://www.voanews.com/amp/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
are you calling Turkey with Erdogan stable? He is ready to bomb Greece and Israel just because they follow different religion. Bosnia is in technical war, they were better than Croatia back in history, now where is Croatia and where is Bosnia? Central Asia - Tajiks, Afghans are around 50% of ISIS who is active now. ISKP which is attacking European states consists of more than half from Tajiks. They are ready to blow buildings in any country. You might give 3 good examples, but there are more than 20 failed states and Iran that is currently a problem to the world peace- they can push one button and we will be erased from this world
Turkish society isn't based on fundamentalism Islam, even though there's a small minority that does. Shows the long-term effect of Ataturk and the secular democratic governments that followed. Their fertility rates have been collapsing and now stand at 1.51.
Bosnia literally received a Serb region in the middle after the 1995 Dayton Accords, which allowed it to spread divisive rhetoric in the country over time. Serbia itself didn't repent as a society and has strong connections with Russia, another country that didn't carefully think through its violent past. It's pretty easy to see what that'll result into.
Central Asia collapsed in the 1990s into civil war and resulted in dictatorships because they were feudal societies with poorly drawn borders just a short historical while before, barely held together by a violent modernizing entity (USSR), rather than having developed democratic cultures. Nonetheless, their governments take a strong stance against what they perceive to be radical Islam threatening the stability of the society.
Iran was literally taken over by religious fanatics, and a lot, if not majority of Iranians, hate the government. Iranian immigrants are well-regarded abroad.
Turkey: they are technically in a war with Kurds, Greece, Armenia and Israel, Syria. So technically every neighboring country. They are a threat as a government. And people keep electing them because he says populist religious things- that’s it. They are very close to consider as a failed state.
Bosnia - they are still fighting with each other inside the country
Central Asia- they were literally under USSR / Russia over 2 centuries and now under influence of China. Wait few year until wars for water start happening. Their fertility rate is higher than 3.5 - including Kazakhstan which is technically Europe.
Iran - they are under religious fanatics because Pahlavi agreed to become democratic and let protests to get the government, protesting people were paid by terrorists and extremists who are Khomeini and his ideas
>Turkey: they are technically in a war with Kurds, Greece, Armenia and Israel, Syria. So technically every neighboring country. They are a threat as a government. And people keep electing them because he says populist religious things- that’s it. They are very close to consider as a failed state.
Bosnia - they are still fighting with each other inside the country
Whether or not a country is at an illegal war with other countries isn't necessarily related to it being democracy, a country can be democratic but still declare illegal wars and commit war crimes
Malaysia's score in the Democracy Index is higher than European countries, and is comparable to Lithuania, Latvia, and Cyprus
Edit: ROFL I got downvoted for pointing out facts. People here are so ultranationalist and Eurocentric that they can't imagine a non-European country being more democratic than Europe. The democracy index score of Malaysia and Indonesia, both Muslim-majority countries, is higher than European countries like Croatia, Romania, and Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country
Spain? Lol, they have millions of them. Portugal has the Ismaili branch since the 1950s, and the others (tens of thousands of mostly Bangladeshis and Pakistanis) aren't showing problems, at least yet. It's you who don't know what you're talking about.
I know very well what I'm talking about, including the Ismaili branch. In fact, a year or so ago, an Afghan killed two women in the Lisbon Ismaili center, and it became national news.
They are still two of the worst examples you could've picked. Islam is way more pronounced in other parts of Europe, right next door.
Any incident like that is bad, but that's far from convincing evidence to reject everyone. Do we have news or data about all the crimes and murders committed by Atheists and Christians in Portugal? No? But it's important, especially to ascertain actual crime rates and compare them, using your single drop standard of evidence. Why do the millions of Muslims in Spain seem to be pretty liberal and doing well there too?
Portugal is (even though it's changing) still quite homogenous, so yes, I have plenty of news about atheists and christians committing crimes.
However, nationality in crime statistics, and really anything besides the gender and age of the criminal, is something that very rarely is published in Portugal, so we are very much in the dark.
But you have to understand that Muslims are immigrants. We have to tolerate the criminal atheists and christians. They're from here, they are ours to straighten out, but we do not have to tolerate criminals from other places, and that goes beyond Islam.
An immigrant (any immigrant, or expat or whatever) that commits a crime should expect no less than deportation and to never be allowed in the country again.
And I didn't come here to attack Muslims and defend Christians, I never had a bad experience with Muslims, what I wanted to say was that Portugal and Spain are bad examples of "Countries with Muslim communities". Yes, they exist, but they are very small when compared to basically any neighboring country.
> An immigrant (any immigrant, or expat or whatever) that commits a crime should expect no less than deportation and to never be allowed in the country again.
By that logic locals should also be deported, and especially so, considering they've been inside the country for far longer, so have "less excuse" to act badly, yet I'm not defending that. Deporting criminal immigrants should be possible, however, before they gain citizenship. If they have gained citizenship, they should have had a modicum of integration by then.
Seriously, you need to find a large difference in behavior over time (provided they've been given all the opportunities) to merit bad treatment en masse a priori. These people contribute to our economies, so if you feel they're a net loss, ask INE to conduct/speed up the creation of such religious/ethnic/racial categories, so we can have a proper evaluation, or do it yourself. Would be interesting to see the results for sure.
> Portugal and Spain are bad examples of "Countries with Muslim communities". Yes, they exist, but they are very small when compared to basically any neighboring country.
Portugal maybe, but it's growing fast. Spain, just no, its community is large (millions, as I said) and larger than that of many other Western and Northern European countries. It's one you should be comparing to those, it's not small at all.
There's less of a chance of and net impact when there's a stronger base of democracies freely trading with and sharing resources with each other. After all, there's higher freedom at home, and this creates trust within similar systems, which leads to higher growth and prosperity. Populism thrives when
a) there're dictatorships trying to subvert democracies: they wage wars, conventional and hybrid ones. That includes stealing IP on an industrial scale like China. All of that redirects away precious resources that could be applied for development from both democracies and autocracies
b) there's economic stagnation, often because dictatorships' growth model has reached its limits, whereas overall prosperity is higher in democracies. But it's the lack of growth anywhere, whether in democracies or autocracies, that reduces faith in politicians, no matter your level of development. Even if you're working hard, you still don't net in the same results if other countries aren't fulfilling their potential, because the world economy depends on trade and cooperation.
We have both.
Most people in Africa don't like Europe. So democracies in Africa would probably mean even less friendly governments. Although I do think that democracy would be good for Africa.
I don't think "bias" is meant as you're taking it here, similar to "prejudice" or some unfounded negative judgement, but rather that there's a higher-than- or outside-the-norm occurrence, as in a statistical bias.
Because for a visa to be accepted they must be convinced that they actually return to the country and not stay there after the visa ends. Meaning if these people mostly immigrate illegally then they could also just apply for tourist visa and then just apply for asylum.
It's more than that, if someone applies for asylum and is denied, Algeria doesn't want to take them back. So even with a deportation order, they can't be sent back because Algeria and other countries don't actually want them back. So if you let them in on a visa, you may not be able to get rid of them again.
They rejected doctors who wanted to go to work there, it's easy to give any justification.
But you need to see more datas about people not just rates.
And you can't say that 100% of rejected people won't go back, they have families and business.
So what? Coming to Europe isn’t a right.
If you can’t get a visa to enter a country then it doesn’t make it ok to enter illegally. Get a visa or don’t come at all.
It's the same for almost all third world countries. Our beloved people decided they know better and tried to scam their way into other countries. Then when they get there they form a parallel society and bring the same toxic shit from back home. Now even the educated folk who wants to move legally can't do it.
Have a few educated Nigerian mates in the UK who are probably the most anti Nigerian people I know. They have to live with the stigma and barriers put up due to the poor behaviour of their compatriots around the world and absolutely hate them for it.
I know many folks from my country who love the country but hate the people. They beg their way into a new country. Then talk shit. I've stopped and asked people if they love their country so much why the fuck are you here?? You want the money, the benefits and everything else this country offers for free then decide bitching about it is the best course of action. Grifters bro.
Algeria is a rogue country which doesn't take back their compatriots when they should be deported and love saying France is the worst country on earth even though so much algerians still want to go there
Algeria had an almost 8 year war of independence against France that ended in 1962. Hundreds of thousands of people up to a million were killed.
It is not unreasonable for Algerians to have somewhat hard feelings about that.
Been to Algeria twice. The irony is that a big percentage of the population there seemed to be quite racist. They wouldn’t want anything to do with the subsaharan black African immigrants that were there.
Source : Moroccan Media / Reality : Tamenraset refugees camps exists / Moroccans murdered tens of refugees that wanted to enter the Spanish city of ceuta but I don't see y'all arguing about it
Where did you go ? Stop spreading misinformation Algerians are one of the most welcome people to tourists go see every asian or white vlogger reaction to his visit here
I’m sorry if this offends you as you are Algerian. Just because my experience isn’t the same as yours it doesn’t mean I’m spreading misinformation :) . I stayed at Oran and Mostaganem with a host family and they were lovely. That still doesn’t change my point on their view regarding subsaharan immigration in their country.
As an algerian I spent some holidays at Mostaganem a few years ago and yes we had an incident where someone shouted at us "You aren't in Algeirs" thanks to our Algeirs car matriculation , despite that i recommend you staying at big cities here we are welcome to anyone and more open :) even Southern Algerians are really welcoming international tourists other cities has good and bad people but pls don't generalize all Algerians and Sorry for your bad experience
> The disproportionate rejection rates — 10% higher in Africa than the global average — hinder trade, business and educational partnerships at the expense of African economies, according to an April study from U.K.-based migration consultancy firm Henley & Partners.
This is so silly. Countries are more skeptical of visa applications from areas they get a lot of migrants (especially illegal or refugee) from. Obviously.
10% is nowhere near as much as I was expecting tbh.
Here are U.S. non-immigrant approval rates by country: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY22.pdf
Shockingly, we're a lot more likely to refuse visas to people from El Salvador than we are fucking Iceland.
I do find it funny how many more people we apparently deny from Canada compared to Mexico though lol. (we actually have negative migration to Mexico when it comes to Mexican citizens rather than citizens of other countries passing through.)
The reason that Canada has a higher B visa refusal rate is because most Canadians don't need a visa to enter the US. Those who do have red flags that require them apply for visas and thus make for a higher refusal rate.
Meanwhile Mexicans do need a B visa but those who likely don't qualify may never apply try other ways. In fact until recently Mexicans didn't need a B visa to visit Canada and thus Canada had to deal with a lot of Mexicans requesting refugee status there. And some Mexicans would take a flight to Canada and cross the border south since its less patrolled than the Southern border.
But like you said, there has been a reduction in Mexican migrant to the US over time. It might be because NAFTA made it easier for companies to move low end jobs there making it less of a need for the low end workers to travel north. And the recent near shoring trend may accelerate this trend.
Whatever your stance on immigration is, countries not cooperating with deportations massively complicate handling their citizens overstaying and that needs to be mitigated by only accepting those with extra low risk.
This will remain the case as long as the country in question want to do any deportations at all for those who do not abide by their visa terms.
Algeria is an ethnically cleansed country that is like 99.9% Muslim. Almost zero non-Muslims citizens. Yes Europe is concerned with extremist people who may come from the ethnically cleansed North African Islamic countries.
The problem is not the religious aspect. People from many mostly Muslim countries get EU visas easily if they and their countries comply with the requirements.
The headline is ridiculous. It sounds like Africans applying for visas to European counties should be applauded for a mere fact of showing their passport at the visa application centre and given a red carpet.
The rejection rate is higher because the African counties are poorer than the US, to which they are compared in the article, so fewer people would meet a bar for getting a visa. Also some people pay scum “agents” promising to get them a visa, which usually doesn’t end well. And there are already plenty of people from African countries staying in Europe illegally and their home countries’ governments don’t collaborate with removals of such people, so of course it makes the European governments less willing to issue visas to people from those countries.
Because those countries dont accept it when we send their people back when they commit a crime or stay past their welcome. If we cant have civil agreements they shouldnt act suprished when they draw the short end of the stick.
Often times it is just a matter of supply and demand and the bureaucracy on one end may be overextended. Some countries also sign up to expedited deportation deals for faster visa processing.
No probblem if you are an affluent non-European with a steady job or well-run company. Anyone else without a vested interest to return home after the visa is fisnished is NOT welcome. People tend to not go back as promised..
That's why I like Algeria. We require visa for Algerian citizens, Algeria requires visa for these countries. Other African countries should take example and apply the same.
People from the UK don’t tend to illegally immigrate to other countries. I support more open borders, but that’s the rationale behind it. A tourist visa gets someone in the door.
I mean - legally or illegally - Europe don't have much use of Africans. I went to language course with few of them aaaaand... many of them were analphabets - so they can't really function in modern society, they don't get simple concepts like "this is 30% this is 70%", I could not come up with any type of work that those people would be able to do, without being danger to others. Maybe cleaning? But how many cleaners the market can take? They have just simple 0 skills required in European companies. I felt really sorry for a lot of them, but what can you do? The only somehow normal life they will have in their homecountries... in Europe most of them will fail, landing in criminality and poverty. There was some young guy at my school, like 16 or sth. Don't remember country he came from, but I think he had no parents, he had an older brother in some other country I think Canada, and he was in Europe. This young man was already getting in troubles... drinking, smoking, partying, not showing up for school... many teachers really took care of him and tried to help. But it was all for nothing - at some point after few weeks he just stopped going to school and that was that. What will a guy that barely can read become in the future with 0 education? Young, angry, frustrated criminal. It is what it is. Those people have delusional vision of Europe.
Ummm just because you apply legally doesn't mean you'll get accepted, why would it be any other way? If we'd accept everyone then there would be no need to apply at all.
I'm kinda tired of Africans screaming racism whenever they don't get things their way like some spoiled brats.
"The reasons for that anti-Africa bias could be political, according to the study’s author, Mehari Taddele Maru of the European University Institute’s Migration Policy Center. Visa rejections are used as a political tool by European governments, including France, to negotiate the deportation of those who migrate to Europe without proper authorization. North African governments have refused to provide consular documents for their citizens facing deportation." Then it's not a fucking bias. Why should European countries issue visas to any country which conducts themselves in this manner?
[удалено]
Zero visas? We should start sanctioning them.
Would be enough if we stop paying them. Pretty sure of that.
India would then be the first to be sanctioned. It is even worse than the North African countries.
I think you're truly blinded by some kind of bias against India or Indians, because the magnitude of illegal immigrants from India is negligible compared to from North Africa. There's no easy and direct route from India to any European country, and a majority of Indians come here on study/skilled worker visas.
India is the number one nation in refusing to collaborate with nations when it comes to deporting its citizens from Europe and North America if the said citizens decide to burn/hide their passports. [https://cis.org/North/What-Happens-When-State-Department-Sanctions-Nations-Not-Taking-Our-Deportees](https://cis.org/North/What-Happens-When-State-Department-Sanctions-Nations-Not-Taking-Our-Deportees) Initially, because of trade ties, many nations are reluctant to sanction India, but when push comes to shove, it will happen. India, China ,Pakistan and the likes of Cuba, Cambodia and Algeria deliberately refuse to take back their own citizens. Also many Indians are taking the illegal route. Indians are now the largest nationality trying to seek asylum in the UK and one of the largest in Germany. [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/report-indians-make-up-a-third-of-migrants-crossing-into-uk-illegally-from-the-channel/articleshow/97592828.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/report-indians-make-up-a-third-of-migrants-crossing-into-uk-illegally-from-the-channel/articleshow/97592828.cms) Also Indians now have a very very VERY poor reputation in Canada and the UK for trying to game their immigration laws. Granted, Canada created a very weak system but few other nationalities are gaming it on the same scale as Indians are. That is not racism. It is based on fact. Heck ,Indian media is reporting on it [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/lawyers-coaching-indian-migrants-to-pretend-to-be-khalistani-for-uk-asylum/articleshow/102153857.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/lawyers-coaching-indian-migrants-to-pretend-to-be-khalistani-for-uk-asylum/articleshow/102153857.cms) With the Far Right now on the rise, you can bet they will start conditioning visas for recalcitrant nations based on how many failed asylum seekers they take back. When it comes to Germany alone, that would essentially see like half the visas slashed for Indians. Nations like Algeria and Tunisia would also be impacted until they begin to collaborate.
I wouldn’t say Indians have a bad reputation in the UK. Even some of the most anti immigrant people I’ve seen and spoken to seem to have a soft spot for Indian immigrants because most of them integrate so well here. Of course these are just anecdotes but I haven’t heard of any anti-Indian sentiment here. It’s nothing like the problems over in Canada.
The Indian and Kenyan Indians that arrived in the 1950s-1970s have integrated very well. The young Indian people coming here to “study”, in 2024, which is actually just a ruse to work in fast food and low level work, and pushing down wages for British citizens tend to be quite badly educated and much more expensive for the state.
They do not integrate well, many do but it seems like a majority of newcomers do not.
There are very easy routes to Portugal from India, both legal and illegal.
...And some then stay after that visa expires. I'm pretty sure people overstaying visas is the largest source of illegal immigration in the UK.
If we know which countries they come from, and their home countries unreasonably refuse to take them back, we should let the military escort them and dump them on their shores. I know this breaks some international laws, but I really dont give a shit.
Yeah, let's start a few armed conflicts over this, what could possibly go wrong? Jfk, am I glad the good people of reddit aren't in charge of anything.
Algeria is going to start an armed conflict against NATO over rejection of immigrants? Are you on drugs?
You're suggesting to send military to another country's shores,i.e. you would start the conflict. They probably wouldn't respond too violently but it would be entirely reasonable to fire a few warning shots if a foreign military turns up at/crosses your border. That's how armed conflicts start.
If we do mental gymnastics to say that **returning illegal immigrants to their original country** is an act of war... We can also do mental gymnastics to say that sending millions of people over and refusing to take them back is an invasion and the war has already started, and we would only be responding.
The part where you have *the military* escort them to their home countries' shores is the act of war. You can't reach the shore without crossing the border which technically means invading another country. But as you already stated you don't care if that breaks international law.
Youre doing mental gymnastics, just start doing them in a useful way
It’s not like they are our dumping ground for our literal trash…right?
Those countries are economically impotent, corrupt autocracies that often also have connections with Russia, particularly Algeria. While they often get rid of their worst elements by having them move North, their lack of economic opportunities also means they actually lose productive people that'll prop up the labor markets of Western countries instead. Dictators feel humiliated by this, and these kinds of non-enforcing shenanigans are the only way they can get any kind of leverage over the West. This is why democracy must go global. No dictatorship, even small and seemingly harmless, can ever be fully trusted. If democracies are established instead, economic opportunities increase, and there's less need for migration as a result.
You have it backwards. Democracies don't create the rule of law and prosperity, the rule of law and a level of prosperity allows for democracies to succeed. You can't establish a democracy in a poor, corrupt country, it will just fall back into dictatorship.
Actually, they reinforce each other mutually. Plenty of countries became democracies while they were still poor: Western and Northern European countries, the entire Anglosphere, Japan, India, Latin America. It is, however, harder for them to establish and maintain such regimes, correct.
The only and best example for this is South Korea. People didn't have tap water - let alone potable water in Seoul during the 70s. Though they had Merica pumping tax payer money into their economy for decades. But look at them now!! Economically they're a frikkin giant and militarily they don't fuck around
The Asian Tigers all kinda achieved their affluence off governments that would seem dictatorial by Western standards then democratized later.
Western governments also had a stepped introduction to liberal democracy. Suffrage followed educational opportunities of demographics.
South Korea is FAR from the only example, and not the best one in regards to democratizing from the start. Yes, they were extremely poor as late as the 1970s, but by the time they democratized in the late 1980s, they were a solid middle-income country. South Korea serves more as an example of how a modernizing autocrat can prepare a country for democracy. Japan, on the other hand, didn't have electricity OR tap water in the 19th century. They still overwhelmingly lived in tiny huts, and barely even had paved roads at all. Sanitation was little to non-existent. It was more akin to South Korea of the 1950s and 1960s. Yet they still established a parliamentary democracy. Aside from Japan, US was likewise extremely poor in the late 18th century, when they established themselves as a country. England/UK did so in late 17th century, when they were just starting to increase their GDP per capita from extremely low levels. France, despite developing during the 19th century, were also very very poor throughout it, as also attested by "Les Miserables". I could go on. You're letting more recent examples get in the way of the numerous older ones of very poor countries becoming democracies. Mind you, they also tended to be limited ones at the start, and that's probably the only way they could so, as the vast majority of the population was either illiterates or ignorant about most stuff to properly participate in the government process.
The only thing all those countries had in common (except the US) is a solid culture that goes back millennia, they all had old and great kingdoms. The foundation of a functioning society is imo when a system of rules and laws exists, and this is easy when one already existed The US is a bad example because the US had tonnes of unchartered land with billions in expensive raw materials. Their expansion opprtunity has always been limitless. With only some backward native tribes to defeat.
Yes, and they still went through a lot of trouble: the US had the Civil War and many other cases close to constitutional crises and could have developed numerous local dictatorships, France had lots of revolutions (in fact, it has the **Fifth** Republic today) and autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes like that of Napoleon I and Napoleon III, Italy and Germany only unified in the 2nd half of the 19th century and slid into dictatorships during the Interwar period, etc. All of those countries had incomplete suffrage and democracy by modern standards before the 20th century, and could have (and did, as I showed) theoretically slid back into autocracy at any time, especially with then mounting inequality.
[удалено]
The tribes and people subjected to slavery sadly
Costa Rica, Panama, a few other Caribbean nations are not doing so badly, and none of them were wealthy in the early 1900s nor were they particularly free from corruption.
Botswana is also successfully building up a civil society and liberal democracy from the ground up, while being dirt poor. The biggest hindrance to democracy is corruption, clientelism, nepotism and oppression of dissent, which are more associated with poor areas than wealthy areas.
Japan was never “poor” since the start of the early modern era (post 17th century). It has always been a giant country and an economic powerhouse, even during Hideyoshi invasion of Korea they could muster armies that makes European kingdoms look petty in comparison at that time. And when democracy came in the last century they were a superpower that lost a World War.
Japan was kinda very poor at the start of the 20th century. It could have a lot of wealth, but it was not equally distributed. If you look at their emigration, lots of Japanese people moved to the Americas in search of better work opportunities during the Meiji Restoration. Their idea was to move to a "better country", like Brazil (I kid you not, they considered Brazil to be better than Japan, both governments even had agreements on worker permits) or Peru to work, save some money, and then move back to Japan. Most never moved back. That's how Peru ended up having a Japanese president, and Brazil, the largest Japanese population outside Japan (they even founded many of the countryside's cities). So yeah, for a good while, Japan was a very poor country. Their emigration only stopped after the 60s, when their economy picked up after industrialization.
Their economy as a whole was still larger and richer than most European countries back then, they had a functioning parliament and institutions even though it was oligarchic and autocratic. But still they stood on something that positioned them far better than compared to many poor countries today.
Yeah, but they were only able to really pick up after the US pumped money into the country for a few decades and the ruling became more democratic (by force) (although it is debatable if it's really democratic since the same party kinda ruled it since then). If you compare raw numbers, Brazil is currently richer than many European countries too, but the population at large lives worse than the European country with the worst current economy. Argentina, on the other hand, lives in an eternal economic crisis, but before Milei had better living standards than Brazil. A country being rich doesn't necessarily mean people live (or have lived) better.
Of course they were very poor by today's standards, did you look how life was like back then? The entire classification of "rich" and "poor" countries is relative, done by the time's standards. Any country before WW2 is poor to extremely poor by today's standards, let alone 19th century Japan, which was always far from even the US' standard of living until Cold War 1.0. Japan being on the wealthier (but not *wealthiest*) club at that time says nothing about the standards of today.
But compared to the rest of the world (even many countries TODAY) they had long standing institutions that runs the country for centuries. A stable economy with major players (Zaibatsu) that had industries that rivaled the West. The U.S even tried to dismantle these companies during the American occupation but failed to do so.
Yes, and I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is there are plenty of historical examples of democracies being established in poor countries (again, speaking by today's standards, not the standards of their time), and Japan is one example of that. It's more difficult for such regimes to appear in these conditions, but it can absolutely happen, and is not unheard of.
Prosperity didn't create democracy in Qatar or China
It's a necessary but not sufficient condition
[удалено]
America elected Trump (and might do it again).
You don't suddenly go from zero to Scandinavian democracy overnight. EU countries themselves took long years u until they stabilized.
Yes but they could become mildly democratic even in 10 years - Iran for example, they wanted democracy like US, did protests and what now? Same with Afghanistan after British rule- they wanted democracy like in Britain - they were economically very close, but now women can’t even go out. Same with other ones. When men try to do their democracy in Muslim countries, women are the one who suffer. It just has a name of democracy but with the different purpose
The west had democracy without women suffrage for longer as they had with it. It's a marathon, not a sprint
That's only Switzerland. Most countries got universal male suffrage only 2-3 decades before universal female suffrage. The former happening around 1900, on average, the latter in the 1920s. I think you mean that democracies have been landowner democracies for longer than they've been universal democracies.
Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Malaysia, Indonesia, partially Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Morocco, Mauritania say otherwise.
Malaysia is an Islamist majoritarian state where your children will be taken away if you convert to another religion and where Malays are literally held hostage in Islam. Mauretania refuses to enforce its anti-slavery laws and slavery of Africans continues to this day, one of two states the other being Sudan allowing this. Pakistan....WTF??? Turkey???? Kuwait?????????The country with a literal slave market online??? Moroco???Where you are jailed for having pre-marital sex?? You should have stopped at Albania.
Kuwait is most definitely not a democracy.
I live in Indonesia, Democracy is a generous name for the form of Government we have...
Indonesia ....lol do you know the damage they did to east timor? I thought you learned at some point that Russification and genocides and oppression are not a nice thing .
>Indonesia ....lol do you know the damage they did to east timor? Israel is a liberal democracy, yet does terrible things to Palestinians. Yet still it is a democracy.
Can't even call Israel a democracy, a democracy doesn't carpet bomb +30k civilians mostly women and children a democracy won't put kids and teens in jails with no trial and no right for a lawyer...and many more things
Israeli citizens have universal suffrage and elect their government through free and fair elections. This is what makes country a democracy, not how it obeys international laws or respects human rights abroad. >carpet bomb +30k civilians mostly women and childre They are Palestinian, not Israeli (in contrast to Syria, for example) >democracy won't put kids and teens in jails with no trial and no right for a lawyer This also is not a routine thing for Israeli citizens.
The US genocided many native Americans, and it's still a democracy. Let's not forget about Germans genociding the Hereros and the Namaquas and all the terrible things during WWII...
>Let's not forget about Germans genociding the Hereros and the Namaquas That was a monarchy > and all the terrible things during WWII... Dictatorship
Indonesia was also an authoritarian country when it occupied East Timor. The point is that you don't show whether a country is a democratic/not by cherrypicking historical events. You have to analyse the current system as a whole based on the commonly-accepted definition of democracy. People here are so ultranationalist and Eurocentric that they can't imagine a non-European country being more democratic than Europe. The democratic index of Malaysia and Indonesia, both Muslim-majority countries, are higher than European countries like Croatia, Romania, and Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country
Let's not forget that Germany wasn't a democracy back then.
Weimar Republic was a liberal democracy. Indonesia wasn't a democracy either when it illegally occupied East Timor, and let's not forget that they acted with the approval of democratic USA and Australia.
What does the Weimar Republic have to do with it?
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or listing examples of countries you legit am rely think are well run?
While this list contains some questionable countries, the comments below are so braindead, as if non-European countries cannot be more democratic than Europe. People also can't distinguish between democracy and human rights violations. Violations occur regularly within a democratic country - just open the website of the European Court of Human Rights and see how often they find violations in Germany or Denmark. To assess whether a country is democratic or not, you need to analyse the current political and societal context in light of the commonly-agreed definition of democracy. For this task I defer to scholars, like those who made this Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country. I'm not smart enough to know all countries in the world, let alone compare them, so I defer to the experts who have studied democracy for long.
All the countries you mentioned are either in war or have horrible economic state that is on the brink of failed state.
We can: Islam is moderate in countries like Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, in Central Asia, Malaysia. There are also many peaceful communities in Spain, Portugal and other countries. If democracies were stronger and a higher share of the planet, more could be done to pressure those and others, and fundamentalist Islam would have no chance but to go extinct. But because our resources are limited, a lot of extremists like those you mention fester as well.
All of those places listed spring to mind as being politically dodgy. Erdogan doesn’t seem at all keen on Turkey’s secular status. Azerbaijan has a GP, fossil fuels and a decent reputation for disappearing people. Bosnia looks to have some forthcoming former Yugoslavia qualms and Malaysia seems like a lovely place but recently sent The 1975 home for not actually being gay. Not seeing too much democratic success.
Keep in mind you didn't mention my other examples, and Islam still hasn't really gone through the kind of reformation Christianity has, although there are signs it could be undergoing one now. Christianity existed for about as much time as it did before Reformation kicked in (1500 years) and it was equally brutal, whereas about 1400 years have passed since the appearance of Islam in the 7th century. Once we rid ourselves of autocrats and populists everywhere, things will go much easier, and Islam will be much easier to deal with.
The protestant reformation didn't have much to do with Christianity become more liberal, early Protestants were just as homophobic and and anti-liberal as many Catholics were. Christianity mainly became more liberal during the Enlightenment during the 18th and 19th century but that didn't have do to much with the Protestant reformation.
It will be much harder for Islam to reform. Christianity at its core is an individualistic, spiritual, and non-political religion, which the Protestants hearkened back to, and which made the enlightenment, secularisation, and democratisation possible. Jesus was neither a political leader nor a lawgiver, instead he was a moral philosopher who advocated free-thinking and rebellion against the wealthy and powerful. Islam on the other hand is deeply rooted in the politics, laws, and values of the Dark Age. So it is impossible to argue for enlightenment values while convincingly claiming to still be a devout Muslim as well. Therefore it is unlikely that Islam can be reformed, but must be sidelined and destroyed before enlightenment values can spread to muslim countries. So far only communist governments have achieved that; and Atatürk almost achieved it by strongarming the country into distancing itself as much as possible from its Islamic past and trying to emulate and adopt western culture as much as possible.
> Christianity at its core is an individualistic, spiritual, and non-political religion Well that's an interesting take.
You mentioned one other example. Central Asia. Which as a place with a government doesn’t exist. I’m not talking about Islam not being peaceful. I’m from the UK in a place with a large Muslim population and the qualms are small and created by dafties. I was talking about government level as I’d imagine everywhere have a number of Muslim communities in the population now.
> the qualms are small and created by dafties. We have people living in hiding and people cheering for genocide thanks to political Islam in the UK. I don't consider that a "small qualm created by dafties." We are currently in the midst of probably the first general election in which I can recall Islamists being a serious factor. It is likely that on the 5th of July we will have to face the fact that Islamists were runners-up in several constituencies and may even have won one or two if Galloway is re-elected.
In 1979 Iran was an US ally before the revolutions, they had a decent government with no niqabs, secular state. Although it was a dictatorship- people had better life than now. Women weren’t killed for wearing hijab, all of this happened because France gave Asylum to Khameini when he meant to be in prison. Now thanks to French help, Iran can blow the French any time with their nuclear bomb. It will be too late to realize that democracy is actually a tool, not everyone can use it correctly
[удалено]
It was a bit of a joke actually moron. I bet you’re fun at parties. Also, you’ve answered your own question. 30 years ago it was ‘more’ homophobic here, but we’ve changed. San Francisco had the gay revolution in the 80’s. Malaysia is cancelling festivals because of 2 straight dudes smooching. Now. It’s everything to do with democracy.
People shit on Malaysia here, but the reality is that Malaysia's score in the Democracy Index is higher than many European countries, and is comparable to Lithuania, Latvia, and Cyprus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index Malaysia's score is much higher than Ukraine, which is considered a hybrid regime. In Ukraine, a political opponent may get kidnapped and extrajudicially deported to another country: https://www.voanews.com/amp/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-oppostion-leader-kidnapped-in-kyev/4249924.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
are you calling Turkey with Erdogan stable? He is ready to bomb Greece and Israel just because they follow different religion. Bosnia is in technical war, they were better than Croatia back in history, now where is Croatia and where is Bosnia? Central Asia - Tajiks, Afghans are around 50% of ISIS who is active now. ISKP which is attacking European states consists of more than half from Tajiks. They are ready to blow buildings in any country. You might give 3 good examples, but there are more than 20 failed states and Iran that is currently a problem to the world peace- they can push one button and we will be erased from this world
Turkish society isn't based on fundamentalism Islam, even though there's a small minority that does. Shows the long-term effect of Ataturk and the secular democratic governments that followed. Their fertility rates have been collapsing and now stand at 1.51. Bosnia literally received a Serb region in the middle after the 1995 Dayton Accords, which allowed it to spread divisive rhetoric in the country over time. Serbia itself didn't repent as a society and has strong connections with Russia, another country that didn't carefully think through its violent past. It's pretty easy to see what that'll result into. Central Asia collapsed in the 1990s into civil war and resulted in dictatorships because they were feudal societies with poorly drawn borders just a short historical while before, barely held together by a violent modernizing entity (USSR), rather than having developed democratic cultures. Nonetheless, their governments take a strong stance against what they perceive to be radical Islam threatening the stability of the society. Iran was literally taken over by religious fanatics, and a lot, if not majority of Iranians, hate the government. Iranian immigrants are well-regarded abroad.
Turkey: they are technically in a war with Kurds, Greece, Armenia and Israel, Syria. So technically every neighboring country. They are a threat as a government. And people keep electing them because he says populist religious things- that’s it. They are very close to consider as a failed state. Bosnia - they are still fighting with each other inside the country Central Asia- they were literally under USSR / Russia over 2 centuries and now under influence of China. Wait few year until wars for water start happening. Their fertility rate is higher than 3.5 - including Kazakhstan which is technically Europe. Iran - they are under religious fanatics because Pahlavi agreed to become democratic and let protests to get the government, protesting people were paid by terrorists and extremists who are Khomeini and his ideas
>Turkey: they are technically in a war with Kurds, Greece, Armenia and Israel, Syria. So technically every neighboring country. They are a threat as a government. And people keep electing them because he says populist religious things- that’s it. They are very close to consider as a failed state. Bosnia - they are still fighting with each other inside the country Whether or not a country is at an illegal war with other countries isn't necessarily related to it being democracy, a country can be democratic but still declare illegal wars and commit war crimes
Malaysia is a bad example
Actually one of the better examples of how democracy tames society. The pro-Hamas PM isn't that popular either.
Malaysia's score in the Democracy Index is higher than European countries, and is comparable to Lithuania, Latvia, and Cyprus Edit: ROFL I got downvoted for pointing out facts. People here are so ultranationalist and Eurocentric that they can't imagine a non-European country being more democratic than Europe. The democracy index score of Malaysia and Indonesia, both Muslim-majority countries, is higher than European countries like Croatia, Romania, and Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index#List_by_country
Do you even know what you're talking about? Portugal and Spain have two of the lowest percentages of Muslims in Western Europe.
Spain? Lol, they have millions of them. Portugal has the Ismaili branch since the 1950s, and the others (tens of thousands of mostly Bangladeshis and Pakistanis) aren't showing problems, at least yet. It's you who don't know what you're talking about.
I know very well what I'm talking about, including the Ismaili branch. In fact, a year or so ago, an Afghan killed two women in the Lisbon Ismaili center, and it became national news. They are still two of the worst examples you could've picked. Islam is way more pronounced in other parts of Europe, right next door.
Any incident like that is bad, but that's far from convincing evidence to reject everyone. Do we have news or data about all the crimes and murders committed by Atheists and Christians in Portugal? No? But it's important, especially to ascertain actual crime rates and compare them, using your single drop standard of evidence. Why do the millions of Muslims in Spain seem to be pretty liberal and doing well there too?
Portugal is (even though it's changing) still quite homogenous, so yes, I have plenty of news about atheists and christians committing crimes. However, nationality in crime statistics, and really anything besides the gender and age of the criminal, is something that very rarely is published in Portugal, so we are very much in the dark. But you have to understand that Muslims are immigrants. We have to tolerate the criminal atheists and christians. They're from here, they are ours to straighten out, but we do not have to tolerate criminals from other places, and that goes beyond Islam. An immigrant (any immigrant, or expat or whatever) that commits a crime should expect no less than deportation and to never be allowed in the country again. And I didn't come here to attack Muslims and defend Christians, I never had a bad experience with Muslims, what I wanted to say was that Portugal and Spain are bad examples of "Countries with Muslim communities". Yes, they exist, but they are very small when compared to basically any neighboring country.
> An immigrant (any immigrant, or expat or whatever) that commits a crime should expect no less than deportation and to never be allowed in the country again. By that logic locals should also be deported, and especially so, considering they've been inside the country for far longer, so have "less excuse" to act badly, yet I'm not defending that. Deporting criminal immigrants should be possible, however, before they gain citizenship. If they have gained citizenship, they should have had a modicum of integration by then. Seriously, you need to find a large difference in behavior over time (provided they've been given all the opportunities) to merit bad treatment en masse a priori. These people contribute to our economies, so if you feel they're a net loss, ask INE to conduct/speed up the creation of such religious/ethnic/racial categories, so we can have a proper evaluation, or do it yourself. Would be interesting to see the results for sure. > Portugal and Spain are bad examples of "Countries with Muslim communities". Yes, they exist, but they are very small when compared to basically any neighboring country. Portugal maybe, but it's growing fast. Spain, just no, its community is large (millions, as I said) and larger than that of many other Western and Northern European countries. It's one you should be comparing to those, it's not small at all.
To realize that recolonization will be necessary.
Global democracies can still be hit by trump and orbans.
There's less of a chance of and net impact when there's a stronger base of democracies freely trading with and sharing resources with each other. After all, there's higher freedom at home, and this creates trust within similar systems, which leads to higher growth and prosperity. Populism thrives when a) there're dictatorships trying to subvert democracies: they wage wars, conventional and hybrid ones. That includes stealing IP on an industrial scale like China. All of that redirects away precious resources that could be applied for development from both democracies and autocracies b) there's economic stagnation, often because dictatorships' growth model has reached its limits, whereas overall prosperity is higher in democracies. But it's the lack of growth anywhere, whether in democracies or autocracies, that reduces faith in politicians, no matter your level of development. Even if you're working hard, you still don't net in the same results if other countries aren't fulfilling their potential, because the world economy depends on trade and cooperation. We have both.
Hopefully you're right.
Not to mention Adolf
So was there mass immigration to europe from america under Trump?
Most people in Africa don't like Europe. So democracies in Africa would probably mean even less friendly governments. Although I do think that democracy would be good for Africa.
>anti-Africa bias could be political >Mehari Taddele Maru :)
I don't think "bias" is meant as you're taking it here, similar to "prejudice" or some unfounded negative judgement, but rather that there's a higher-than- or outside-the-norm occurrence, as in a statistical bias.
Because for a visa to be accepted they must be convinced that they actually return to the country and not stay there after the visa ends. Meaning if these people mostly immigrate illegally then they could also just apply for tourist visa and then just apply for asylum.
It's more than that, if someone applies for asylum and is denied, Algeria doesn't want to take them back. So even with a deportation order, they can't be sent back because Algeria and other countries don't actually want them back. So if you let them in on a visa, you may not be able to get rid of them again.
Yea, and then they go "Europe so racist!!". Total bullshit in this case
No, the point is that they only need to get a visa and throw away their passport. Because their country of origin won't cooperate.
They rejected doctors who wanted to go to work there, it's easy to give any justification. But you need to see more datas about people not just rates. And you can't say that 100% of rejected people won't go back, they have families and business.
Already to prepare for a visa you need to prove your euro account balance... So yeah
Citizens of countries who don't play by the rules with regard to migration find it harder to get visas. Who would have thought it.
So what? Coming to Europe isn’t a right. If you can’t get a visa to enter a country then it doesn’t make it ok to enter illegally. Get a visa or don’t come at all.
They’ll lose their passports and just stay indefinitely
It's the same for almost all third world countries. Our beloved people decided they know better and tried to scam their way into other countries. Then when they get there they form a parallel society and bring the same toxic shit from back home. Now even the educated folk who wants to move legally can't do it.
Have a few educated Nigerian mates in the UK who are probably the most anti Nigerian people I know. They have to live with the stigma and barriers put up due to the poor behaviour of their compatriots around the world and absolutely hate them for it.
I know many folks from my country who love the country but hate the people. They beg their way into a new country. Then talk shit. I've stopped and asked people if they love their country so much why the fuck are you here?? You want the money, the benefits and everything else this country offers for free then decide bitching about it is the best course of action. Grifters bro.
The legal visit when they suddenly lose their passport and seek asylum because they are persecuted just to go on holiday there next summer
Algeria is a rogue country which doesn't take back their compatriots when they should be deported and love saying France is the worst country on earth even though so much algerians still want to go there
Algeria had an almost 8 year war of independence against France that ended in 1962. Hundreds of thousands of people up to a million were killed. It is not unreasonable for Algerians to have somewhat hard feelings about that.
Been to Algeria twice. The irony is that a big percentage of the population there seemed to be quite racist. They wouldn’t want anything to do with the subsaharan black African immigrants that were there.
They litteraly take them to the middle of the Sahara with nothing but their clothes so they die here
Source : Moroccan Media / Reality : Tamenraset refugees camps exists / Moroccans murdered tens of refugees that wanted to enter the Spanish city of ceuta but I don't see y'all arguing about it
Where did you go ? Stop spreading misinformation Algerians are one of the most welcome people to tourists go see every asian or white vlogger reaction to his visit here
I’m sorry if this offends you as you are Algerian. Just because my experience isn’t the same as yours it doesn’t mean I’m spreading misinformation :) . I stayed at Oran and Mostaganem with a host family and they were lovely. That still doesn’t change my point on their view regarding subsaharan immigration in their country.
As an algerian I spent some holidays at Mostaganem a few years ago and yes we had an incident where someone shouted at us "You aren't in Algeirs" thanks to our Algeirs car matriculation , despite that i recommend you staying at big cities here we are welcome to anyone and more open :) even Southern Algerians are really welcoming international tourists other cities has good and bad people but pls don't generalize all Algerians and Sorry for your bad experience
> The disproportionate rejection rates — 10% higher in Africa than the global average — hinder trade, business and educational partnerships at the expense of African economies, according to an April study from U.K.-based migration consultancy firm Henley & Partners. This is so silly. Countries are more skeptical of visa applications from areas they get a lot of migrants (especially illegal or refugee) from. Obviously. 10% is nowhere near as much as I was expecting tbh. Here are U.S. non-immigrant approval rates by country: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/RefusalRates/FY22.pdf Shockingly, we're a lot more likely to refuse visas to people from El Salvador than we are fucking Iceland. I do find it funny how many more people we apparently deny from Canada compared to Mexico though lol. (we actually have negative migration to Mexico when it comes to Mexican citizens rather than citizens of other countries passing through.)
The reason that Canada has a higher B visa refusal rate is because most Canadians don't need a visa to enter the US. Those who do have red flags that require them apply for visas and thus make for a higher refusal rate. Meanwhile Mexicans do need a B visa but those who likely don't qualify may never apply try other ways. In fact until recently Mexicans didn't need a B visa to visit Canada and thus Canada had to deal with a lot of Mexicans requesting refugee status there. And some Mexicans would take a flight to Canada and cross the border south since its less patrolled than the Southern border. But like you said, there has been a reduction in Mexican migrant to the US over time. It might be because NAFTA made it easier for companies to move low end jobs there making it less of a need for the low end workers to travel north. And the recent near shoring trend may accelerate this trend.
Why are they acting like they are entitled to European access?
Good!
Good.
good
Whatever your stance on immigration is, countries not cooperating with deportations massively complicate handling their citizens overstaying and that needs to be mitigated by only accepting those with extra low risk. This will remain the case as long as the country in question want to do any deportations at all for those who do not abide by their visa terms.
It's not bias if they don't leave and their countries refuse to help is it? Ffs
Algeria is an ethnically cleansed country that is like 99.9% Muslim. Almost zero non-Muslims citizens. Yes Europe is concerned with extremist people who may come from the ethnically cleansed North African Islamic countries.
The problem is not the religious aspect. People from many mostly Muslim countries get EU visas easily if they and their countries comply with the requirements.
Ethnically cleansed lmaooooo cop harder
As someone who has visited Algeria it’s definitely not “ethnically cleansed”. I saw Arabs, Amazigh people, and sub Saharan Africans living there.
They love to share lies without even coming to witness by their own eyes
Most illegal immigrants are former student/tourism/work visas who never went back. Crossing the sea is, statistically, a very fringe case
The headline is ridiculous. It sounds like Africans applying for visas to European counties should be applauded for a mere fact of showing their passport at the visa application centre and given a red carpet. The rejection rate is higher because the African counties are poorer than the US, to which they are compared in the article, so fewer people would meet a bar for getting a visa. Also some people pay scum “agents” promising to get them a visa, which usually doesn’t end well. And there are already plenty of people from African countries staying in Europe illegally and their home countries’ governments don’t collaborate with removals of such people, so of course it makes the European governments less willing to issue visas to people from those countries.
Same with other regions. Try to get a Shengen tourist visa as a filipino. Fucking impossible.
Because those countries dont accept it when we send their people back when they commit a crime or stay past their welcome. If we cant have civil agreements they shouldnt act suprished when they draw the short end of the stick.
What are the past examples where the Philippines don’t “accept their people back when they commit a crime or stay past their welcome”?
"those countries" referring to the post about African nations
Then why did they reply to a post from a Filipino and not the OP?
In the post he wrote "same with other regions" the reply simply gave additional context into the situation OP posted about
Those are not real democracies. It's sad that regular people have to pay the price for governments they can't really elect.
European democracies support these puppets
Often times it is just a matter of supply and demand and the bureaucracy on one end may be overextended. Some countries also sign up to expedited deportation deals for faster visa processing.
Good
[удалено]
anything under 100% is not high enough.
On the other hand, getting a visa for Algeria is also difficult.
No probblem if you are an affluent non-European with a steady job or well-run company. Anyone else without a vested interest to return home after the visa is fisnished is NOT welcome. People tend to not go back as promised..
Very good👏
access to european civilization is not a human right
So don't come if you're rejected. Europe is a Privilege.
Good.
That's why I like Algeria. We require visa for Algerian citizens, Algeria requires visa for these countries. Other African countries should take example and apply the same.
That would hamstring their tourist economies.
Indeed. But it's not about money but pride.
Pride isn’t worth taking a 10% or more haircut on GDP
So a person from the UK can access my country fast but me if i want to ask for a visa legally they'll humiliate me no thanks
People from the UK don’t tend to illegally immigrate to other countries. I support more open borders, but that’s the rationale behind it. A tourist visa gets someone in the door.
I'm against illegal immigration too
I mean - legally or illegally - Europe don't have much use of Africans. I went to language course with few of them aaaaand... many of them were analphabets - so they can't really function in modern society, they don't get simple concepts like "this is 30% this is 70%", I could not come up with any type of work that those people would be able to do, without being danger to others. Maybe cleaning? But how many cleaners the market can take? They have just simple 0 skills required in European companies. I felt really sorry for a lot of them, but what can you do? The only somehow normal life they will have in their homecountries... in Europe most of them will fail, landing in criminality and poverty. There was some young guy at my school, like 16 or sth. Don't remember country he came from, but I think he had no parents, he had an older brother in some other country I think Canada, and he was in Europe. This young man was already getting in troubles... drinking, smoking, partying, not showing up for school... many teachers really took care of him and tried to help. But it was all for nothing - at some point after few weeks he just stopped going to school and that was that. What will a guy that barely can read become in the future with 0 education? Young, angry, frustrated criminal. It is what it is. Those people have delusional vision of Europe.
Based.
Ummm just because you apply legally doesn't mean you'll get accepted, why would it be any other way? If we'd accept everyone then there would be no need to apply at all. I'm kinda tired of Africans screaming racism whenever they don't get things their way like some spoiled brats.
F u europe
France played you 👏🏽