Refugees migrants, would you give a room in your home?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ok you really have stretched a point about my poor comprehension ability.  You need to repeat it to convince yourself that you are scoring a cheap point but you come across as desperate. You must have been told that you are a legend in your own mind and writing reams of boring irrelevance proves zilch.

Not stretching the point - since it's relevant to every new response you make - you clearly have problems comprehending what you read. I don't come across as desperate, just accurate where your posts are concerned.

In post#100 this is what you wrote
 '- I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice ' Really? Why can they pick and choose any European country they fancy regardless of which EU member state they enter first. Are they asylum seekers or economic migrants? You haven't explained?

. I have explained repeatedly - I think it is fair that each state takes in refugees rather than all the refugees end up in the states closest to the crisis. And if Germany has offered to take them, or British cities have offered to take them, and they want to go there - I think they should be able to make that choice to settle in the cities they have been offered refuge. 

In post#112
'Yes - intelligence and hard-work - the refugees and migrants I know do multiple, non-professional jobs, share accommodation, are very frugal  in their spending and manage to even save money and pay tax.' So you have not met any Somali asylum seekers and migrants? Strange that. Evasion noted.

I don't know anyone who has identified themselves as a Somali asylum seeker or migrant, so have no idea about their job situation or accommodation or spending habits. We have no Somali clients so I have no information on the tax they pay. I have met people from the Somali community at my local mosque but never spoken to them at length. I might have spoken at length to other people who might have been from the Somali community but they did not identify themselves as Somalian asylum seekers or refugees.

You still haven't answered the question about whether you are extrapolating the experiences of the Somali community to Syrian refugees, or why the Somali community is relevant to this thread. Evasion noted.

In post #127
'As for whether the Syrians "should" be allowed to settle in Europe - as far as I am concerned if their neighbourhoods are being bombed by ISIS or other anti-Assad rebel forces or Assad's own forces on behalf of the US/ UK/ European/Russian/ Saudi governments, and if there is no more money to feed, house, educate millions of them or their families in refugee camps in Lebanon/ Jordan/ Turkey and no job opportunities for them because they are denied work permits in those countries, then they would have to settle in Europe.'
So you claim that Assad/IS have been bombing syrian people  on behalf of the UK? Really?

No - that's your comprehension problem rearing its head again. The "/" means "or" as opposed to "and". It is in the UK interest to support certain rebel groups in Syria. Who knows, at some point they may decide to support Assad as the lesser evil compared to ISIS.

And you defend Saudis in this post :
'I stated the claims of the Saudi Foreign Ministry regarding Syrian refugees. You can read here their claim that they have taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees.'
For an Islamist like you who would smell a conspiracy theory in the London directory, You seem to be easily taken in by Saudi propaganda.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/tag/saudi-arabia/

That's your comprehension problems rearing its head again - along with selective quoting by you. I said the Saudi claims could not be verified, any more than the claims you have linked to about the Saudi claims. You really should get help with your inability to comprehend English.

[Nearly Sane]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

[jakswan]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Do they mine comes back with whataboutery.

[dadvokat]

Comprehension you say? Desperation I say..

I have explained to you already - Before Germans made a unilateral decision to take in these economic migrants, there was EU directive called the Dublin Regulation which stipulated that third country nationals have to claim asylum in the first EU member state they enter. Comprehension problems, methinks.

You might not have met Somalis but would have read about a community which came to the UK as asylum seekers/economic migrants and number about 200,000 in this country.  FGM has been in the news recently. stick your fingers in your ears, not listening, lalala.

The UK is/is not responsible for bombing Assad -still not clear!

Defending Saudis for turning their back on the ummah!

[dadvokat]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.

[Nearly Sane]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.

I love you too, darling

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Do they mine comes back with whataboutery.

What's your definition of  whataboutery? Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?

This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).

I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.

Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Comprehension you say? Desperation I say..

I have explained to you already - Before Germans made a unilateral decision to take in these economic migrants, there was EU directive called the Dublin Regulation which stipulated that third country nationals have to claim asylum in the first EU member state they enter. Comprehension problems, methinks.

And I have explained to you many times that various people think this is unfair to the states closest to the crisis, who are unable to cope with the numbers. If you are unable to comprehend this don't worry - luckily the Mayor of Bristol and various councillors and politicians have far less difficulty in comprehending this than you have, and have far more influence than you on the final decision. Would you have preferred it if the refugees had been left to starve in camps?

You might not have met Somalis but would have read about a community which came to the UK as asylum seekers/economic migrants and number about 200,000 in this country.  FGM has been in the news recently. stick your fingers in your ears, not listening, lalala

And the relevance to Syrians is .....?

The UK is/is not responsible for bombing Assad -still not clear!

The UK is supporting moderate anti-Assad rebels. The UK is selling large quantities of arms to their friends, the Saudi government, and these weapons are being passed onto anti-Assad forces, but shipments also get diverted using private Saudi funds, to ISIS or they get stolen or they get captured - the end result is ISIS have a lot of weapons and ammunition. Any clearer now?

Defending Saudis for turning their back on the ummah!

Yes I agree - the UK government is defending the Saudis, by supporting them politically and selling them weapons. Well done for at least grasping that much.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Thanks 

[dadvokat]

And it doesn't matter what people think whether certain countries have to accept more asylum claims compared to others based on their geographical position. That's why Dublin convention and regulation came into force. It was to stop asylum shopping. Do keep up!

Who the feck is mayor of Bristol and how much power does he wield? It's up to the government in power to decide whether to accept refugees and how many. They will then decide with consultation with various local councils on how refugees can be dispersed.

I have made it quite clear that Cameron has made the right decision to accept 20,000 refugees from the camps instead of rewarding those young economic migrants (quite a few who are non-Syrian) who have muscled their way through to various European member states without any respect for EU laws.

Relevance of Somalis to Syrians? You are acting dumb even after I explained to you that Somalis have come to the UK as asylum seekers/migrants just as Syrians have. You claim that Syrians you have met are hard working, pay their taxes etc. I asked you to compare if this applies to Somalis and any other similar community?

So you insist that the UK should accept these Syrians as you claim they have provided arms to the rebels. But you think it's ok if the Saudis, Russians and Iranians do not accept any refugees. As for Saudis, the operative word is refugee not temporary workers from Syria already working in the Middle East labelled officially as 'Arab brothers and sisters in distress'. And no they haven't accepted any refugees.

Any clearer now?

[dadvokat]

Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'

Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.

I love you too, darling

Feeling ain't mutual I am afraid. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And it doesn't matter what people think whether certain countries have to accept more asylum claims compared to others based on their geographical position. That's why Dublin convention and regulation came into force. It was to stop asylum shopping. Do keep up!

Actually it does matter that the German and French governments decided Dublin was unfair to Greece, which couldn't cope with the unprecedented numbers, and to the refugees themselves, and Germany suspended Dublin in relation to Syrian refugees.

Dublin has been criticised before this crisis for not working and for it being expensive to send refugees back to the first member state they entered. In the past few years the European Court has ruled against refugees being sent back to Greece if Greece does not have the means or facilities to deal with them.

So in this current situation several EU countries view a mandatory quota system as being the more civilised option. Have you even been watching the news?

Who the feck is mayor of Bristol and how much power does he wield? It's up to the government in power to decide whether to accept refugees and how many. They will then decide with consultation with various local councils on how refugees can be dispersed.

Read the link in the OP - the Mayor is very vocal -  makes the government look bad and lobbying often forces governments to change their policies.

I have made it quite clear that Cameron has made the right decision to accept 20,000 refugees from the camps instead of rewarding those young economic migrants (quite a few who are non-Syrian) who have muscled their way through to various European member states without any respect for EU laws.

And no doubt the 20,000 are very grateful. Doesn't really help the countries like Greece, Italy and Hungary who don't have the resources to process or feed or look after the number of refugees entering their countries, many of whom have made the dangerous journeys in hope of a better future for themselves and their families rather than starve in camps.

Relevance of Somalis to Syrians? You are acting dumb even after I explained to you that Somalis have come to the UK as asylum seekers/migrants just as Syrians have. You claim that Syrians you have met are hard working, pay their taxes etc. I asked you to compare if this applies to Somalis and any other similar community?

Why would I compare Syrians to Somalis unless you are stating that there is a link between the two. Are you stating that? You are still acting dumb and pretending I haven't asked you many times if you are extrapolating the stats for the Somali community to the Syrian refugees and if so, on what basis.

So you insist that the UK should accept these Syrians as you claim they have provided arms to the rebels. But you think it's ok if the Saudis, Russians and Iranians do not accept any refugees. As for Saudis, the operative word is refugee not temporary workers from Syria already working in the Middle East labelled officially as 'Arab brothers and sisters in distress'. And no they haven't accepted any refugees.

Any clearer now?

Where did I say it was ok for Saudis, Russians and Iranians to not accept refugees? I see you are having comprehension problems again. I think all of those countries and the UK should accept refugees rather than leave them in camps that can't feed, house or school them or deal with their medical needs or issue them work permits.

Many of the refugees would prefer to return to their homes in Syria but are unable to do so because of the war. They cannot stay in refugee camps if the camps have run out of funding. And where they have no hope of working to support themselves and their families.

As I said before neither you nor I have any way of verifying claims on the internet about whether the Saudis have taken in Syrian refugees, since Saudi does not use the term refugee in relation to people and their families permitted to work and live in Saudi.

[JP]

Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt have all undergone change with the “Arab Spring” but as this event has moved east it has hit a brick wall.

Is it something more than the west selling arms and wanting cheap oil?

[dadvokat]

Dublin provisions have been in operation since 1997 despite objections by 1 or 2 member states and I believe over 25 member states have signed on to the regulation. Germany might have suspended the regulation for Syrian migrants but this was a unilateral decision without consultation with the EU commission or other member states. Mutti merkel will pay a very heavy price for taking this step. But I am glad you have come to your senses and have accepted that third country nationals cannot decide which member state they can claim asylum in. The Hungarian authorities were absolutely right that everyone had to be documented and fingerprinted before they could move further into Europe. They were just following EU regulations. German authorities are the only member state to suspend Dublin provisions and only for Syrian nationals. No other member state has followed suit. If a Syrian national has been fingerprinted for asylum in Austria and then travels to the UK and claims asylum again, he will be removed back to Austria.

You are still acting dumb over Syrian/Somali comparison. You claimed that asylum seekers/migrants would be an asset to a country  and be productive and economy would benefit. I asked if this was the case for all asylum seekers/economic migrants. Evasion noted.

And we agree that Syrian nationals should not just be accepted by the west but Saudis, Iranians, gulf states and Russians should all accept those people fleeing civil war. And why just Syrians? Surely Iraqis, afghans, Yemenis, Eritreans, Somalis , Pakistanis and Sudanese are all fleeing civil wars, insurgency despotic regimes so should all be accepted.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dublin provisions have been in operation since 1997 despite objections by 1 or 2 member states and I believe over 25 member states have signed on to the regulation. Germany might have suspended the regulation for Syrian migrants but this was a unilateral decision without consultation with the EU commission or other member states. Mutti merkel will pay a very heavy price for taking this step. But I am glad you have come to your senses and have accepted that third country nationals cannot decide which member state they can claim asylum in. The Hungarian authorities were absolutely right that everyone had to be documented and fingerprinted before they could move further into Europe. They were just following EU regulations. German authorities are the only member state to suspend Dublin provisions and only for Syrian nationals. No other member state has followed suit. If a Syrian national has been fingerprinted for asylum in Austria and then travels to the UK and claims asylum again, he will be removed back to Austria.

You do know that a majority of the EU members pushed through imposing mandatory quotas of refugees on member states rather than sticking to Dublin? I think it makes sense for refugees to choose to go to countries that can better accommodate them rather than all stay in Greece or Italy, who quite clearly can't cope with the numbers. It was good that Germany, after discussions with the French government, decided to ease the burden on Greece and Italy by stating they would not deport Syrian refugees. Britain has refused to participate in the mandatory quota because they have a legal opt out. I gather that Ireland and Denmark also had a legal opt out but chose not to exercise it.

You are still acting dumb over Syrian/Somali comparison. You claimed that asylum seekers/migrants would be an asset to a country  and be productive and economy would benefit. I asked if this was the case for all asylum seekers/economic migrants. Evasion noted.

You are still being dumb - in your case it's not an act - about why a post I made on a thread about taking in Syrian migrants/ refugees, where I supported taking in Syrian refugees and specifically talked about Syrians that I had met has any relevance to Somali refugees. If the Somali refugees had problems you have still failed to explain why that is relevant to the issue of supporting Britain taking in Syrian refugees. Evasion noted.

And we agree that Syrian nationals should not just be accepted by the west but Saudis, Iranians, gulf states and Russians should all accept those people fleeing civil war. And why just Syrians? Surely Iraqis, afghans, Yemenis, Eritreans, Somalis , Pakistanis and Sudanese are all fleeing civil wars, insurgency despotic regimes so should all be accepted.

On this thread I am discussing the issue of taking in Syrian refugees because of the humanitarian need due to the war in Syria between pro and anti-Assad forces and because of the unfair burden on Greece and Italy. The existence of refugees from other countries does not change my opinion on the Syrian refugees. Why would it?

[dadvokat]

East European countries have refused to accept mandatory quotas imposed by EU commission. These quotas are to accept 66,000 migrants in Greece and Italy. But its idiotic policy which cannot be policed when member states have signed on to Schengen Agreement. The UK has refused to accept mandatory quotas. Dublin Regulation is still in force and apart from German authorities exempting Syrian nationals and the Greeks not having the resources to accept any asylum seekers,  all the other EU member states are all signatories and are implementing the regulation.

Syrian and Somali - you are not just Dumb but acting dumber by the minute. Your assertion was asylum seekers/migrants would contribute to a country's economy. I asked you a very simple question however you have proved you are incapable of answering and instead you have just become befuddled and have tried to evade the question.

And of course if you think Syrians should be accepted in the UK/ Europe as asylum seekers why not other nationals like Afghans, Sudanese, Somalis, Iraqis, Eritreans, Pakistanis  etc as they are also fleeing from civil wars, despotic regimes? And how many asylum seekers should the UK accept from these countries?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.

4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.

The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.

My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".

You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.

[dadvokat]

We are going round in circles so I will bow out of this exchange by emphasising that the UK and Europe cannot accept all the refugees from conflicts around the world. We do not have the resources to accept many more asylum seekers/migrants in the UK as our infrastructure is close to breaking point. In a recent poll  76% of the population want immigration reduced and 50% believe immigration is the most important issue facing the UK.  People can see and read about 5000 or so migrants from Calais trying to get to the UK clandestinely. They could claim asylum in France if they were being persecuted  n their countries of origin. There has to be a European wide effort to stem the flow of thousands of migrants entering Europe daily or there will be widespread disorder on the streets of European cities. I do not blame the migrants for trying their luck and unless there is more economic parity between Europeans and Africa and sub saharan regions, there will always be a pull factor for people to risk life and limb to get to Europe. This is where the overseas development aid comes in as it should be targeted to help people with medicines, food, immunisation, education for girls esp.  and ensure it doesn't end up in the pockets of corrupt officials.

[dadvokat]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/22/theresa-may-tough-stance-economic-migrants-europe

[jakswan]

What's your definition of  whataboutery?

Its where someone would respond to anaccusation / point by effectively saying whatabout X, Y or Z and evade responding to the accusation / point.

Want an example, well you didn't finish there you wrote more:-

Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?

This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).

I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.

Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.

[ad_orientem]

The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.

4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.

The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.

My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".

You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.

It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What's your definition of  whataboutery?

Its where someone would respond to anaccusation / point by effectively saying whatabout X, Y or Z and evade responding to the accusation / point.

Want an example, well you didn't finish there you wrote more:-

Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?

This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).

I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.

Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.

Ah ok - so asking for your definition of whataboutery, and giving an example of your whataboutery to clarify if that is your definition of whataboutery is whataboutery, according to you. Good to know.

Just checking that your personal definition of "whataboutery" and "evading the point" does not also mean not agreeing to look at issues in the same simplistic way that you do, and not giving the exact response you want in the way you want it.

Because I am more than happy to engage in that type of "whataboutery" every single time I respond on here as I have no interest in coming on here just to agree with you or any other poster if I think your posts are overly simplistic, haven't captured the complexity of issues, and do not make sense.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.

4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.

The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.

My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".

You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.

It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.

I suspect that the people who are pissed off about their wages being cut are still in a far better position than the refugees or the migrants. Whose wages have been cut in Finland, and who made the decision to cut them?

[ad_orientem]

The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.

4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.

The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.

My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".

You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.

It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.

I suspect that the people who are pissed off about their wages being cut are still in a far better position than the refugees or the migrants. Whose wages have been cut in Finland, and who made the decision to cut them?

The government. They haven't implemented it yet but will at the beginning of next year. That we might be better off is neither here nor there.

[Sriram]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34487562

*****************

The German government says there have been almost 500 attacks on homes intended for asylum seekers this year - three times more than in 2014.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere called such violence "shameful". Two-thirds of the attacks were carried out by locals who had no previous criminal record, he said.

Germany expects to host at least 800,000 asylum seekers this year.

****************