I pop back to the most absurd argument. You're asserting that Syrians would prefer to return to their war torn homes than remain in Hungary outside a train station?
Piffle squared. And France should buy a DeLorean and undo its colonial past and and and.
You aren't using your critical faculties. Stop and think - it sounds like a lot of heart talking and not much of head.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
Because Hungary doesn't want them, and Germany is the one welcoming them the most. That's why.
Well then Germany can keep them.
Germany can't house them all, that's the whole point.
She shouldn't have invited them all in then. Germany anyway has a declining population, low density and lots of space. It is also rich so it probably could. It should have thought of such matters before making the policy.
I suggest you also do some reading on the history of France's relationship with North Africa. Most of the Arab migration into France happened after those countries became independent. There was nothing inevitable about such immigration. It was a choice made by France, which has not turned out well and which many in France, not merely the NF, regret making. We would do well to learn from their experience rather than repeat it.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
What naive, idiotic tosh, So all Cameron has to say is "okay, we'll take 1" and everyone is happy. Foolish girl.
PB Tory having a meltdown because someone doesn't agree with him. Oh dear.
Did you not mean that taking 1 would be enough? Sorry I thought that as you'd written it you meant it
I pop back to the most absurd argument. You're asserting that Syrians would prefer to return to their war torn homes than remain in Hungary outside a train station?
Piffle squared. And France should buy a DeLorean and undo its colonial past and and and.
You aren't using your critical faculties. Stop and think - it sounds like a lot of heart talking and not much of head.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
Where have I said Syrians would prefer to return to Syria rather than remain in Hungary? I think they'd love to remain in Hungary, but Hungary doesn't want them.
France shouldn't undo it's colonial past: it should face up to it.
In which case Merkel shouldn't have invited them...
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
Merkel invited the ones she house to Germany.
You're right immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. The West have a done a lot to help cause this crisis, and exacerbate the problems in the Middle East as a whole.
You're getting dangerously close to accepting that Merkel's promise is encouraging more migration. Migration that is uncontrolled, because it is more than Germany can cope with.
Do you see now why this could be a foolish plan, and was a phenomenally stupid comment to make as de facto first politician of Europe.
She shouldn't have invited them all in then. Germany anyway has a declining population, low density and lots of space. It is also rich so it probably could. It should have thought of such matters before making the policy.
I suggest you also do some reading on the history of France's relationship with North Africa. Most of the Arab migration into France happened after those countries became independent. There was nothing inevitable about such immigration. It was a choice made by France, which has not turned out well and which many in France, not merely the NF, regret making. We would do well to learn from their experience rather than repeat it.
Merkel invited them to Germany, not to Europe. Her proposal regarding Europe was an EU-wide policy on the situation.
I'm also aware that the immigration happened after they became independent. But given, that like many other former Empire-owners France hardly left their ex-colonies in the best condition, immigration to a better life from North Africans was inevitable. Many of these colonies, like with the British Empire contributed to wealth and economic well-being of their 'mother-country'. It's not unreasonable that immigrants would want to see some benefit of that.
I pop back to the most absurd argument. You're asserting that Syrians would prefer to return to their war torn homes than remain in Hungary outside a train station?
Piffle squared. And France should buy a DeLorean and undo its colonial past and and and.
You aren't using your critical faculties. Stop and think - it sounds like a lot of heart talking and not much of head.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
Where have I said Syrians would prefer to return to Syria rather than remain in Hungary? I think they'd love to remain in Hungary, but Hungary doesn't want them.
France shouldn't undo it's colonial past: it should face up to it.
In which case Merkel shouldn't have invited them...
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
Merkel invited the ones she house to Germany.
You're right immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. The West have a done a lot to help cause this crisis, and exacerbate the problems in the Middle East as a whole.
You're getting dangerously close to accepting that Merkel's promise is encouraging more migration. Migration that is uncontrolled, because it is more than Germany can cope with.
Do you see now why this could be a foolish plan, and was a phenomenally stupid comment to make as de facto first politician of Europe.
Migration was going to happen irregardless of what Merkel said. Merkel comments' were a step to actually doing something about this crisis.
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
In which case Merkel shouldn't have invited them...
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
Merkel invited the ones she house to Germany.
You're right immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. The West have a done a lot to help cause this crisis, and exacerbate the problems in the Middle East as a whole.
You're getting dangerously close to accepting that Merkel's promise is encouraging more migration. Migration that is uncontrolled, because it is more than Germany can cope with.
Do you see now why this could be a foolish plan, and was a phenomenally stupid comment to make as de facto first politician of Europe.
Migration was going to happen irregardless of what Merkel said. Merkel comments' were a step to actually doing something about this crisis.
Can't fault your logic. Making something worse is indeed 'doing something'....
The Arab World is rich, both culturally and materially. The Arabs were once more advanced than the West.
Countries like Syria or Iraq or Algeria or Libya have abundant natural resources. They should be stable, prosperous, scientifically advanced countries (as the only non-Arab countries in the Near-East, Turkey and Israel, are).
They are not. The Arab World, which stretches from Mauritania on the Atlantic to the Gulf States has hardly any functioning, viable, prosperous, reasonably democratic states (perhaps Tunisia & Jordan).
It has a huge number of failed states in which various barbaric religious factions fight for control.
At some level, the Arab World has to take responsibility for this massive collective failure.
Look at your own posts in this specific thread. Here are your own words in the nested comments
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France can't undo the past - what do you mean *facing up to it*? I'm totally perplexed.
I don't see how that comment equates to what you've said. I just said that they are still refugees because Hungary won't house them. Therefore, they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France should stop blaming migrants, and their descendants for their problems and act as if they've ruined France, and voting for racists such as Marine Le Pen. They should ask themselves why other countries who've had immigration from ex-colonies have handled it far better then they have.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
So many things wrong in that post it's hard to know where to begin. Syrians in Hungary are not at risk of death or persecution in Hungary.
Britain is at risk from IS not because of its meddling in the Middle East but because IS has an explicit goal to attack us in order to achieve its caliphate which extends into Europe and as part of its ideological battle against the infidel.
You have made no case for saying that Tunisia is not safe for Syrian Muslims. And if being at risk of IS attack is a reason for not declaring Tunisia safe then the same applies squared for Britain and France and Belgium and Denmark and Spain.
The Arab World is rich, both culturally and materially. The Arabs were once more advanced than the West.
Countries like Syria or Iraq or Algeria or Libya have abundant natural resources. They should be stable, prosperous, scientifically advanced countries (as the only non-Arab countries in the Near-East, Turkey and Israel, are).
They are not. The Arab World, which stretches from Mauritania on the Atlantic to the Gulf States has hardly any functioning, viable, prosperous, reasonably democratic states (perhaps Tunisia & Jordan).
It has a huge number of failed states in which various barbaric religious factions fight for control.
At some level, the Arab World has to take responsibility for this massive collective failure.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
So many things wrong in that post it's hard to know where to begin. Syrians in Hungary are not at risk of death or persecution in Hungary.
Britain is at risk from IS not because of its meddling in the Middle East but because IS has an explicit goal to attack us in order to achieve its caliphate which extends into Europe and as part of its ideological battle against the infidel.
You have made no case for saying that Tunisia is not safe for Syrian Muslims. And if being at risk of IS attack is a reason for not declaring Tunisia safe then the same applies squared for Britain and France and Belgium and Denmark and Spain.
Anyway it is now late.
So goodnight to all.
YES but my point is, is that Hungary isn't planning on letting them stay there. THAT'S my point. It's hardly a crumb of comfort that you are temporarily safe. In the long term those migrants can't stay in a Hungarian tube station. Something has to be done.
IS was created in the aftermath of her invasion of Iraq. Had that not happening we wouldn't have IS and their explicit goal to attack us. And I have made a case for Tunisia being not safe for Syrian Muslims. It's not just IS attack; it's ISIS actually invading a country and doing to Tunisia what they've done to Syria. A danger we clearly don't face. IS may attack us, but they aren't going to be controlling London instead of Boris Johnson.
The Arab World is rich, both culturally and materially. The Arabs were once more advanced than the West.
Countries like Syria or Iraq or Algeria or Libya have abundant natural resources. They should be stable, prosperous, scientifically advanced countries (as the only non-Arab countries in the Near-East, Turkey and Israel, are).
They are not. The Arab World, which stretches from Mauritania on the Atlantic to the Gulf States has hardly any functioning, viable, prosperous, reasonably democratic states (perhaps Tunisia & Jordan).
It has a huge number of failed states in which various barbaric religious factions fight for control.
At some level, the Arab World has to take responsibility for this massive collective failure.
You have NO sympathy for any of the Syrian refugees? It's hardly their fault their own governments messed up.
Eh? If their native land is so awful - they'll go back to it? Because Hungarians won't roll over and give them a house? I never knew refugees were so picky - death vs nice accommodation.
Look at your own posts in this specific thread. Here are your own words in the nested comments
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France can't undo the past - what do you mean *facing up to it*? I'm totally perplexed.
I don't see how that comment equates to what you've said. I just said that they are still refugees because Hungary won't house them. Therefore, they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France should stop blaming migrants, and their descendants for their problems and act as if they've ruined France, and voting for racists such as Marine Le Pen. They should ask themselves why other countries who've had immigration from ex-colonies have handled it far better then they have.
And @AndyJS What on earth is the frequency of Black/Asian couples got to do with anything?
It's an example of the fact that the dominant PC view that white people are most likely to be racist is completely wrong. Nearly every mixed race couple involves a white person. The real racism exists between groups other than whites.
I was talking about the subject because I was saying that there would probably be problems with black African countries taking in Arab refugees.
And @AndyJS What on earth is the frequency of Black/Asian couples got to do with anything?
It's an example of the fact that the dominant PC view that white people are most likely to be racist is completely wrong. Nearly every mixed race couple involves a white person. The real racism exists between groups other than whites.
Eh? If their native land is so awful - they'll go back to it? Because Hungarians won't roll over and give them a house? I never knew refugees were so picky - death vs nice accommodation.
Look at your own posts in this specific thread. Here are your own words in the nested comments
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France can't undo the past - what do you mean *facing up to it*? I'm totally perplexed.
I don't see how that comment equates to what you've said. I just said that they are still refugees because Hungary won't house them. Therefore, they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France should stop blaming migrants, and their descendants for their problems and act as if they've ruined France, and voting for racists such as Marine Le Pen. They should ask themselves why other countries who've had immigration from ex-colonies have handled it far better then they have.
Not that they'll want to go back to it - but obviously Hungary will put them back in Syria if they aren't keeping them there.
You're calling stuff twaddle that you've completely gone and mis-interpreted.
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
We are going to have to take in a fairly large number of refugees due to the situation having reached the point it has. I hope we and they make the best of it.
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
I am starting from the assumption that we can, and will, take a suitable proportion of Syrian refugees. We need to do two things to enable this: 1) Clear up the political mess caused by Germany 2) Offer the Great British Public something in return
Germany has caused a political mess by its unilateral reactions to the refugee emergency. It has suspended standing EU rules (Dublin Convention) and attempted to dictate to other EU counties that they must accept a quota of immigrants. It has no authority to do this, and is an unwise heavy-handed move (especially coming so soon after bossing Greece around, regardless of whether you think that Greece deserved it or not)
The UK response should be to say that they will follow the German example and adopt temporary emergency measures in order to deal with the crisis. So that they can sell the deal to a British Public who are concerned about record immigration levels, in return for taking in a generous quota of Syrian refugees the UK will temporarily suspend free movement of labour from EU countries.
This does NOT mean that there will be no EU immigration to the UK, but merely that it will be placed on a similar managed basis to applications from the rest of the world (1)
We would stress that these are only temporary measures and would be dropped once we see that there was no need for them.
Of course we would make damn sure that we always needed the "temporary" measures from now on.
(1) This is so that skill shortages can be met, and any other required roles filled. "Good" immigration is great stuff!
[On] August 5, 2014, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki stated that two million Libyans, or one third of the pre NATO intervention population of Libya, have taken refuge in Tunisia. [4]
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
If you read the small print, I think you'll find most of these are on a very temporary basis, effectively 'displaced persons', as you would expect to find in near-neighbours to the conflict(s).
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
If you read the small print, I think you'll find most of these are on a very temporary basis, effectively 'displaced persons', as you would expect to find in near-neighbours to the conflict(s).
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
Oh believe me, I personally see the migrants, er, "swarming" into Europe as little more than chancers! Many aren't even Syrian, Iraqi or Libyan!
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
If you read the small print, I think you'll find most of these are on a very temporary basis, effectively 'displaced persons', as you would expect to find in near-neighbours to the conflict(s).
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
A fine, rhetorical question there, Rod. Of course you know the answer to that one, but also know how to play the PC game.
P.S. Saw a cracking documentary about Kolkata (sp?) aka Calcutta last night. Very educational. Very interesting place. We could learn a lot from the City's inhabitants and they from us.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
No, but to get to Europe from some of these places you go through some not bad countries. Especially true for the UK.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
The 'most rubbish places' - i.e. most of the World aside from Europe - are still better than the boiling cauldrons they are supposedly escaping from, in fear of life and limb...
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
If you read the small print, I think you'll find most of these are on a very temporary basis, effectively 'displaced persons', as you would expect to find in near-neighbours to the conflict(s).
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
A fine, rhetorical question there, Rod. Of course you know the answer to that one, but also know how to play the PC game.
P.S. Saw a cracking documentary about Kolkata (sp?) aka Calcutta last night. Very educational. Very interesting place. We could learn a lot from the City's inhabitants and they from us.
I watched it too, but thought the sewage bit was a little OTT! Kolkata is the local Bengali name, BTW.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
The 'most rubbish places' - i.e. most of the World aside from Europe - are still better than the boiling cauldrons they are supposedly escaping from, in fear of life and limb...
I don't deny that, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to seek aslyum in Europe.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
No, but to get to Europe from some of these places you go through some not bad countries. Especially true for the UK.
I agree, but then how many Syrian refugees are banging down to door to get to the UK. It's more about the level of migrants hitting Europe, and were to place them that's leading the UK to come up into the conversation.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
The 'most rubbish places' - i.e. most of the World aside from Europe - are still better than the boiling cauldrons they are supposedly escaping from, in fear of life and limb...
I don't deny that, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to seek aslyum in Europe.
Then can seek it, as one can seek to win the Lottery, but common sense says almost all of them will, and should be, losers...
There are three basic approaches to immigration: 1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists. 2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical. 3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB. That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
How many Third World countries can actually take in migrants?
If they can maintain several hundred million of their own people in poverty and backwardness, taking a few more from similar countries should have minimal impact on them...
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
If they can't even feed their own people, I doubt they can take in more migrants tbh.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
The 'most rubbish places' - i.e. most of the World aside from Europe - are still better than the boiling cauldrons they are supposedly escaping from, in fear of life and limb...
I don't deny that, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to seek aslyum in Europe.
Then can seek it, as one can seek to win the Lottery, but common sense says almost all of them will, and should be, losers...
There are three basic approaches to immigration: 1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists. 2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical. 3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB. That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
And it's not unreasonable for us to say that it isn't possible.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
And it's not unreasonable for us to say that it isn't possible.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
And you are clearly in 2) although that is what you expect students to think, since they are not paying for any of it.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
I don't see why it isn't possible. And I'm not in (2. I don't think Britain can take in everyone, just some. And I may not be paying for it now, but I will be paying taxes in the future.
I also don't know what you mean by ''pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together''. And solving the problem nearer to the source - if you mean stabilising the Middle East, that's a long-term solution. But it doesn't provide a short-term one as to how we deal with current migrants.
Anyone got any statistics on how many Third World countries have agreed to take their fellow Third Worlders?
It was a while back, I know, but India took in an estimated 10 million refugees during the Bangladesh War of 1971. About 1.5 million decided to stay in India after the Pakistani surrender...
Well, that's interesting enough, but as a localised ethno-religious conflict from long ago, it was not what I was specifically interested in.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
If you read the small print, I think you'll find most of these are on a very temporary basis, effectively 'displaced persons', as you would expect to find in near-neighbours to the conflict(s).
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
It bugs me that this debate is not properly defined in terms of the numbers of economic migrants vs displaced persons vs true refugees. The numbers in the last group is actually quite small and manageable. The displaced persons are best housed close to home because there is not reason why they should not return home once the conflict is over, but we in the West should do far more to assist the Jordan's and Lebanon's and Turkey's to house, feed and keep healthy these displaced persons. There is very little we can do to stop economic migrants for wanting to make it to the UK other than by not being economically successful, or making employment of illegals harder.
Things do get confused somewhat though when economic interests take over. In a long conflict, it makes sense for displaced persons to seek out better temporary shelters than camps of despair and unemployment in the desert. And if you are to be a refugee, why wouldn't you seek asylum in the nicest place to live, even if the law says you should seek asylum in the first safe haven?
And you are clearly in 2) although that is what you expect students to think, since they are not paying for any of it.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
I don't see why it isn't possible. And I'm not in (2. I don't think Britain can take in everyone, just some. And I may not be paying for it now, but I will be paying taxes in the future.
I also don't know what you mean by ''pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together''. And solving the problem nearer to the source - if you mean stabilising the Middle East, that's a long-term solution. But it doesn't provide a short-term one as to how we deal with current migrants.
The UK is currently giving twice as much in aid to this crisis as the rest of the EU put together. The problem with deciding what that some is, is three fold.
Firstly if we (as the UK or the EU) admit more people, it will increase the incentive to travel to the EU, which will increase the number of boats crossing the Mediterranean, which will increase the number of people getting killed crossing the med.
Secondly, how do we tell who are refugees and who are economic migrants in the same crowd, there are going to be thousands of chancers who have "lost" their identify documents trying to come to the UK under cover with the refugees, possibly numbers of terrorists and other undesirables as well. What will happen when the first refugee turns out to be an ISIS adherent and blows some people up ?
Finally, the public tolerance for people coming to this country in volume is at an all time low, any politician taking in a lot of people to the UK, especially in the light of the second point above is going to be in for a rough ride, and UKIP will make hay out of it very easily especially if there are any incidents.
Far better from the point of view of national security to provide plenty of money to build and guard safe areas, and start proper dwellings and proto-businesses in some place near to the trouble, less people will die as well. Of course the problem is that people having uprooted their family see the opportunity to improve their life immeasurably, and attain a European standard of living, perfectly reasonable aspiration and completely unfair to anyone else in the rest of the world making a lawful application to come to the EU.
It bugs me that this debate is not properly defined in terms of the numbers of economic migrants vs displaced persons vs true refugees. The numbers in the last group is actually quite small and manageable.
Because the first group, and to some extent the second group have a very strong incentive to try an appear as members of the third group, and if they destroy their identity papers and claim to have "lost" them in the scramble to leave home, how can we tell otherwise.
I agree completely we should try and take in the small and manageable third group, but we are completely incapable of telling them apart from the vastly larger first two groups who have no right to our largesse.
There are three basic approaches to immigration: 1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists. 2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical. 3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB. That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
Not racists, realists.
There are not hundreds of millions of people from Europe seeking a "better life" in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Iraq, the Philippines, and in 150 other countries on this Earth.
Nor is the United States (so far) building fences along the 49th Parallel...
For your amusement - some quotations about immigration
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration. Hillary Clinton
Britain's an island; it's always had a constant ebb and flow of immigration - it makes it a better place. John Lydon
But then I came to the conclusion that no, while there may be an immigration problem, it isn't really a serious problem. The really serious problem is assimilation. Samuel P. Huntington
Illegal immigrants make a rational choice when they decide to violate our immigration laws. They weigh the costs, including the risks of getting caught, against the benefits of a better life. Jan C. Ting
Environmentalists have been outspoken in their support of smaller family size and abortion rights as keys to reducing global warming. But when it comes to immigration, the single biggest contributor to population growth in the industrial world, they stand largely silent. Gary Bauer
It bugs me that this debate is not properly defined in terms of the numbers of economic migrants vs displaced persons vs true refugees. The numbers in the last group is actually quite small and manageable.
Because the first group, and to some extent the second group have a very strong incentive to try an appear as members of the third group, and if they destroy their identity papers and claim to have "lost" them in the scramble to leave home, how can we tell otherwise.
I agree completely we should try and take in the small and manageable third group, but we are completely incapable of telling them apart from the vastly larger first two groups who have no right to our largesse.
It is actually reasonably easy to distinguish between refugees and other groups. The burden is on the refugee to prove persecution (not just generalized danger or hardship). If they do not have papers, to a certain extent, that is their problem, and puts the pressure on the asylum seeker to prove persecution by other means (still eminently possible). By too readily accepting lack of proof from asylum-seekers, we are merely encouraging the other groups to destroy their papers.
As I said, historically, countries had no problem determining refugee status - rather it is just that we have over the years, through our own procedures and appeals processes, made it so time and resource intensive that it has become unworkable. It need not be, or remain, that way.
If the Democratic Party wants Hillary Clinton as President, they need to infiltrate the Republican Party in vast numbers and select Donald Trump as the candidate.
At what point does one stop becoming a refugee? Surely it is at the time when you reach a place of safety from whatever form of persecution you are fleeing. As such, once Syrians reach, say, Turkey, their status surely changes into economic migrants - they are now seeking to leave one place of safety for a more economically preferable place of safety. Strictly speaking, it should be impossible for Britain to take in refugees, as the word assumes they are seeking refuge from France.
Unsurprisingly, we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some distressing images in the media today. As usual, people are emotionally unable to process numbers '70 dead in lorry' as much as visuals '1 dead on beach'. We then get the usual browbeating that everything is our fault and that we should "do something" (generally unspecified) about it. The major responsibility for this child's death, of course, lies with the parents; statistically you are far more likely to die crossing the water in an unseaworthy vessel than by remaining in Syria in the first place.
And @AndyJS What on earth is the frequency of Black/Asian couples got to do with anything?
It's an example of the fact that the dominant PC view that white people are most likely to be racist is completely wrong. Nearly every mixed race couple involves a white person. The real racism exists between groups other than whites.
Did you marry outside your race, Andy?
I think it most likely that Andy married another member of the human race.
@AndyJS You're forgetting half of those mixed race couples involve ethnic minorities. Who according to you are apparently the 'real racists'....
Andy's point, not that I necessarily agree with it, was that many ethnic minorities are racist towards certain other ethnic groups, but not necessarily whites. It follows that most mixed race couples consist of one white person + one other ethnic minority.
@AndyJS You're forgetting half of those mixed race couples involve ethnic minorities. Who according to you are apparently the 'real racists'....
Andy's point, not that I necessarily agree with it, was that many ethnic minorities are racist towards certain other ethnic groups, but not necessarily whites. It follows that most mixed race couples consist of one white person + one other ethnic minority.
The 2011 Census data would prove/disprove this but I don't know if ONS have released the relevant data. A big thing was made about the number of mixed marriages but little detail was released such as the male/female split.
There are three basic approaches to immigration: 1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists. 2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical. 3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB. That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
Agree up to a point, though some of the posts here appear to be pretty close to 1). GibTom (from Gibraltar?), for instance, thinks it's the refugees' fault for not weighing up statistics accurately and anyway a problem for the neighbouring countries.
In practical terms, I don't think we should get away with legalistically saying hey, refugees need to stay in the first country they reach and happily we're an island so it's not our problem. There is a general disaster going on and I want to see Britain playing a very substantial part in helping. Part of that should be taking in a decent number of refugees (10K/month extra for one year irrespective of other migration sounds a reasonably absorbable number) and part should be plenty of financial support. A link to the claim that we're paying more than everyone else put together, allowing for all the costs Germany is incurring, would be helpful.
There are three basic approaches to immigration: 1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists. 2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical. 3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB. That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
Agree up to a point, though some of the posts here appear to be pretty close to 1). GibTom (from Gibraltar?), for instance, thinks it's the refugees' fault for not weighing up statistics accurately and anyway a problem for the neighbouring countries.
In practical terms, I don't think we should get away with legalistically saying hey, refugees need to stay in the first country they reach and happily we're an island so it's not our problem. There is a general disaster going on and I want to see Britain playing a very substantial part in helping. Part of that should be taking in a decent number of refugees (10K/month extra for one year irrespective of other migration sounds a reasonably absorbable number) and part should be plenty of financial support. A link to the claim that we're paying more than everyone else put together, allowing for all the costs Germany is incurring, would be helpful.
I don't know a single source for a comprehensive comparison. Fairly sure UK donations will be the largest in Europe; unsure if it is more than all the rest added up or if the German costs for refugees already here are included.
I don't see why the UK would end if Scotland left. It was originally formed between a union of Great Britain and Ireland, yet it survived most of Ireland leaving. It can also survive a small chunk of Great Britain leaving. We can go on as the UK with a slight name change after the "of".
Given it is two kingdoms , hard for the one left to be united unless it is with itself.
Manchester, Leeds and Dundee are all united. Perfectly possible to be a United Kingdom after Scotland leaves. Indeed Scotland would cease to have any say in the matter at all...
Can you explain your logic. Given Scotland would be independent any idiot would know it would not be part of the rump. The point was how could it be UK when one of the two kingdoms had gone.
That's not the case. The two kingdoms which formed the UK were the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Part of one Kingdom left in the 1920s and we remained the UK. If part of the other Kingdom leaves then we will still remain the UK.
Indeed. We could be want we want to be it would be no one else's business.
Alternatively we could give Wales independence and tell NI to sort out its own problems, then we would just be England and probably much happier.
Mind, we would have to do something about those islands around the world that for whatever reason refuse to become independent. The Falklands would have to stay with the England and we ought to hang on to Gib. The Caribbean territories we could divide up - the Cayman's stay with England whilst Ireland, Scotland and wales can draw lots over the rest, though maybe Ireland ought to take the British Virgin Islands. I think there is a place or two in the pacific which still look to the UK (on one if memory serves they worship the Duke of Edinburgh as a god), if that is correct they should be given to Scotland. The islanders of St. Helena should be given a choice who to belong to. Any I have missed like Ascension, the Yanks can have, since they are probably there already.
All this faffing about with a federal structure, forget it. HMtQ will probably be a bit miffed, though.
They will want to keep the tax havens so that the London laundry is kept busy.
I think a lot more people will miss it when it is gone. And its break-up will have a major impact on perceptions of all parts of the former entity in other parts of the world. The PM who lost his country is going to spend a lot of time being pitied to his face and laughed at behind his back.
OK, Southam, instead of carping. If you were PM what would YOU do to prevent Scotland leaving the UK?
There's no way that Westminster can settle the Scottish Question and remain electable by voters in England.
The only programme which would succeed would be : -
1. Fully Federal UK with individual Nations holding vetos on all joint policy decisions in a Senate which replaces the Lords.
2. An apology for the lies over oil since the 1970s and the pillaging of money to the South East.
3. A waiver to Scotland over any contribution for the current UK debt, an agreement that the Federal Budget should always be in balance and for each devolved Nation to issue its own debt through the BoE.
4. A subvention/reparation agreed to be paid to Scotland probably in the region of £5bn per annum currently, combined with a limit to Scotland's contribution to the Defense budget (about 1.2% of GDP would reasonably in line with neighbouring nations)
5. Scrapping Trident.
Anything less and it is certain the UK will be dissolved. Probably any one of those would make a Westminster party toxic with the English electorate who have lapped up the lies about Scotland for years.
The English don't like to perform the Kow-Tow.
Unless visiting Riadh.
Washington for sure , never get off the belly there
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
And it's not unreasonable for us to say that it isn't possible.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
And you are clearly in 2) although that is what you expect students to think, since they are not paying for any of it.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
Of course we could admit quarter of a million or so and guarantee UKIP 100 seats in the next election...
4) is spot on. Would add take our fair share of true asylum seekers, as we have always done. But sadly, those people are now close to impossible to filter out from a massive movement of economic migrants who are busting down the doors. If you can't control your borders, you can't control your state. Simple as that. Your housing, your health, your education capabilities all just got inadequate.
What Merkel has done has stoked the fires of a headlong rush to Europe from the south and the east. She has removed the incentive for the young and the fit to overthrow odious regimes. By opening the doors to those who can flee from their unhappy circumstances to the warm embrace of Germany, she has condemned those who can't leave to lives without much hope. This is a consequence the let 'em in brigade never address.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
And it's not unreasonable for us to say that it isn't possible.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
And you are clearly in 2) although that is what you expect students to think, since they are not paying for any of it.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
Of course we could admit quarter of a million or so and guarantee UKIP 100 seats in the next election...
4) is spot on. Would add take our fair share of true asylum seekers, as we have always done. But sadly, those people are now close to impossible to filter out from a massive movement of economic migrants who are busting down the doors. If you can't control your borders, you can't control your state. Simple as that. Your housing, your health, your education capabilities all just got inadequate.
What Merkel has done has stoked the fires of a headlong rush to Europe from the south and the east. She has removed the incentive for the young and the fit to overthrow odious regimes. By opening the doors to those who can flee from their unhappy circumstances to the warm embrace of Germany, she has condemned those who can't leave to lives without much hope. This is a consequence the let 'em in brigade never address.
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
So clearly you feel they should all move to the best places that exist. Its going to be a bit of squeeze in the EU when most of Africa and substantial chunks of South East Asia get the message and come over here.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
No, I just don't blame them for wanting the best opportunities life can bring.
And it's not unreasonable for us to say that it isn't possible.
Surely most on PB are (1 (not saying PBers are racists or anything like that.)
And you are clearly in 2) although that is what you expect students to think, since they are not paying for any of it.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
Of course we could admit quarter of a million or so and guarantee UKIP 100 seats in the next election...
4) is spot on. Would add take our fair share of true asylum seekers, as we have always done. But sadly, those people are now close to impossible to filter out from a massive movement of economic migrants who are busting down the doors. If you can't control your borders, you can't control your state. Simple as that. Your housing, your health, your education capabilities all just got inadequate.
What Merkel has done has stoked the fires of a headlong rush to Europe from the south and the east. She has removed the incentive for the young and the fit to overthrow odious regimes. By opening the doors to those who can flee from their unhappy circumstances to the warm embrace of Germany, she has condemned those who can't leave to lives without much hope. This is a consequence the let 'em in brigade never address.
Brilliant post and exactly the point I was making to friends the other day. By syphoning off the most able, we reduce the chance of internal regime change.
Carla Fiorina benefited from low expectations in her tier 2 debate combined with a media desperate to promote her as she is the only female competing.It looked bad for the Republicans in the tier 1 debate to have 10 males 0 females involved.Now there will be far more focus on her .She was value at 66/1 a month ago.Carson is 28/1 and may still be getting underrated due to a lot of people probably still thinking the GOP would not elect an African American .I` m not sure about that.He has a populist touch and a lot of Republicans instinctively like conservative African Americans not least to counter the left wing African Americans on the other side and their white liberal lickspittles who endlessly try to paint the USA and its police as `racist`.Both Carson and Fiorina both need to find financial backing to compete though
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
And the point you keep on missing is that they are safe the moment they leave Syria. They don't need to get to Britain to be safe.
They may prefer Britain to Turkey or Lebanon or Hungary. But a preference does not make you a refugee. And it is up to Britain to decide whether or not it wants to invite any of these people in. British governments should, when making such decisions, think of British people first.
I never said they needed to get to Britain to be safe - simply that the extent of the migrant crisis is as such obviously many countries will have to take in migrants (one can't do it on their own), and that we have an obligation to do something.
...? Which means we have an obligation to take them in. So much for discussing alternate solutions, you've just essentially said we have to do what merkel wants.
It is so noticeable that all those on news programmers across the media who are wailing and criticising Cameron to do more, have not put forward one iota on how to solve the basic problem in both the short and longer term.
Perhaps they should be told to shut up before commenting more and try and use their brains - that is if they have any.
The SNP government will be begging Westminster to put up that razor wire fence and Border posts..To stop desperate Scots from escaping..and it wont be the old,the young or Freedom nutters..it will be the bright,well educated young folk..They will be swimming across the Solway Firth in their thousands...and will be made very welcome.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
And the point you keep on missing is that they are safe the moment they leave Syria. They don't need to get to Britain to be safe.
They may prefer Britain to Turkey or Lebanon or Hungary. But a preference does not make you a refugee. And it is up to Britain to decide whether or not it wants to invite any of these people in. British governments should, when making such decisions, think of British people first.
I never said they needed to get to Britain to be safe - simply that the extent of the migrant crisis is as such obviously many countries will have to take in migrants (one can't do it on their own), and that we have an obligation to do something.
...? Which means we have an obligation to take them in. So much for discussing alternate solutions, you've just essentially said we have to do what merkel wants.
That'd be nice, but I don't see how it involves a dialogue between nations discussing different ways to help, or how a leader is supposed to react when you've declared only one option is acceptable (many countries have to take more and we have a obligation to do something - you've made clear giving aid no longer founts as something - equals Cameron is not allowed to disagree with the plan, in effect if not intent)
Mr. HYUFD, didn't realise Sanders was that leftwing.
Mr. Financier, I do wonder what people generally think. Media coverage appears to be generally sympathetic (there's been a petition to change the term from migrant to refugee, which appears to have at least partially been effective).
The SNP government will be begging Westminster to put up that razor wire fence and Border posts..To stop desperate Scots from escaping..and it wont be the old,the young or Freedom nutters..it will be the bright,well educated young folk..They will be swimming across the Solway Firth in their thousands...and will be made very welcome.
Comments
Piffle squared. And France should buy a DeLorean and undo its colonial past and and and.
You aren't using your critical faculties. Stop and think - it sounds like a lot of heart talking and not much of head.
I suggest you also do some reading on the history of France's relationship with North Africa. Most of the Arab migration into France happened after those countries became independent. There was nothing inevitable about such immigration. It was a choice made by France, which has not turned out well and which many in France, not merely the NF, regret making. We would do well to learn from their experience rather than repeat it.
France shouldn't undo it's colonial past: it should face up to it.
Do you see now why this could be a foolish plan, and was a phenomenally stupid comment to make as de facto first politician of Europe.
I'm also aware that the immigration happened after they became independent. But given, that like many other former Empire-owners France hardly left their ex-colonies in the best condition, immigration to a better life from North Africans was inevitable. Many of these colonies, like with the British Empire contributed to wealth and economic well-being of their 'mother-country'. It's not unreasonable that immigrants would want to see some benefit of that.
Countries like Syria or Iraq or Algeria or Libya have abundant natural resources. They should be stable, prosperous, scientifically advanced countries (as the only non-Arab countries in the Near-East, Turkey and Israel, are).
They are not. The Arab World, which stretches from Mauritania on the Atlantic to the Gulf States has hardly any functioning, viable, prosperous, reasonably democratic states (perhaps Tunisia & Jordan).
It has a huge number of failed states in which various barbaric religious factions fight for control.
At some level, the Arab World has to take responsibility for this massive collective failure.
I don't see how that comment equates to what you've said. I just said that they are still refugees because Hungary won't house them. Therefore, they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France should stop blaming migrants, and their descendants for their problems and act as if they've ruined France, and voting for racists such as Marine Le Pen. They should ask themselves why other countries who've had immigration from ex-colonies have handled it far better then they have.
Britain is at risk from IS not because of its meddling in the Middle East but because IS has an explicit goal to attack us in order to achieve its caliphate which extends into Europe and as part of its ideological battle against the infidel.
You have made no case for saying that Tunisia is not safe for Syrian Muslims. And if being at risk of IS attack is a reason for not declaring Tunisia safe then the same applies squared for Britain and France and Belgium and Denmark and Spain.
Anyway it is now late.
So goodnight to all.
IS was created in the aftermath of her invasion of Iraq. Had that not happening we wouldn't have IS and their explicit goal to attack us. And I have made a case for Tunisia being not safe for Syrian Muslims. It's not just IS attack; it's ISIS actually invading a country and doing to Tunisia what they've done to Syria. A danger we clearly don't face. IS may attack us, but they aren't going to be controlling London instead of Boris Johnson.
Twaddle. I'm off to Netflix. I don't see how that comment equates to what you've said. I just said that they are still refugees because Hungary won't house them. Therefore, they are at risk of going back to Syria.
And France should stop blaming migrants, and their descendants for their problems and act as if they've ruined France, and voting for racists such as Marine Le Pen. They should ask themselves why other countries who've had immigration from ex-colonies have handled it far better then they have.
I was talking about the subject because I was saying that there would probably be problems with black African countries taking in Arab refugees.
Not that they'll want to go back to it - but obviously Hungary will put them back in Syria if they aren't keeping them there.
You're calling stuff twaddle that you've completely gone and mis-interpreted.
How many Third World countries are stepping up to the plate to take Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc, and where are the queues, riots, tragedies and equivalent mass hysteria and guilt as we are being subjected to at the moment?
Turkey 1,758,092 Syrian refugees
Lebanon 1,196,560
Jordan 628,427
Iraq 247,861
Egypt 133,862
Why is it that these people are making a beeline for Europe, and we are falling over ourselves to accommodate all comers, at least philosophically, for the moment?
We need to do two things to enable this:
1) Clear up the political mess caused by Germany
2) Offer the Great British Public something in return
Germany has caused a political mess by its unilateral reactions to the refugee emergency. It has suspended standing EU rules (Dublin Convention) and attempted to dictate to other EU counties that they must accept a quota of immigrants. It has no authority to do this, and is an unwise heavy-handed move (especially coming so soon after bossing Greece around, regardless of whether you think that Greece deserved it or not)
The UK response should be to say that they will follow the German example and adopt temporary emergency measures in order to deal with the crisis. So that they can sell the deal to a British Public who are concerned about record immigration levels, in return for taking in a generous quota of Syrian refugees the UK will temporarily suspend free movement of labour from EU countries.
This does NOT mean that there will be no EU immigration to the UK, but merely that it will be placed on a similar managed basis to applications from the rest of the world (1)
We would stress that these are only temporary measures and would be dropped once we see that there was no need for them.
Of course we would make damn sure that we always needed the "temporary" measures from now on.
(1) This is so that skill shortages can be met, and any other required roles filled. "Good" immigration is great stuff!
[On] August 5, 2014, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki stated that two million Libyans, or one third of the pre NATO intervention population of Libya, have taken refuge in Tunisia. [4]
The message still seems to be, however, 'cadge a lift to Europe as fast as you can...'
Why not Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi, Iran, Russia, etc?
These people have made a beeline for surrounding countries as well as Europe. Are refugees suppose to go to the most rubbish place that exists or something?
Of course you know the answer to that one, but also know how to play the PC game.
P.S. Saw a cracking documentary about Kolkata (sp?) aka Calcutta last night. Very educational. Very interesting place. We could learn a lot from the City's inhabitants and they from us.
Think "London" v. "Londinium"
1) Take no-one. This is particularly favoured by Xenophobes & Racists.
2) Take everyone. Favoured by well-intentioned, nice people, but totally impractical.
3) Take some people, but disagree about where we draw the line. This is almost everyone on PB.
That's all we are discussing ultimately - where we draw the line.
The side issue is about some countries not pulling their weight.
Sorry to burst your hand-wringing bubble, but some parts of the world are a bit crap, people have to live there, because there isn't enough space or money for them all to live in the nice bits. That is not to say they have to live in war zones, but they should be expected to live in any place equivalent to their home country which is peaceful. War zone not entitle you to an automatic upgrade to a first world lifestyle.
Most of PB is in
4) pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together and try and solve the problem near to the source.
Of course we could admit quarter of a million or so and guarantee UKIP 100 seats in the next election...
I also don't know what you mean by ''pay twice as much as the rest of the EU put together''. And solving the problem nearer to the source - if you mean stabilising the Middle East, that's a long-term solution. But it doesn't provide a short-term one as to how we deal with current migrants.
Things do get confused somewhat though when economic interests take over. In a long conflict, it makes sense for displaced persons to seek out better temporary shelters than camps of despair and unemployment in the desert. And if you are to be a refugee, why wouldn't you seek asylum in the nicest place to live, even if the law says you should seek asylum in the first safe haven?
Firstly if we (as the UK or the EU) admit more people, it will increase the incentive to travel to the EU, which will increase the number of boats crossing the Mediterranean, which will increase the number of people getting killed crossing the med.
Secondly, how do we tell who are refugees and who are economic migrants in the same crowd, there are going to be thousands of chancers who have "lost" their identify documents trying to come to the UK under cover with the refugees, possibly numbers of terrorists and other undesirables as well. What will happen when the first refugee turns out to be an ISIS adherent and blows some people up ?
Finally, the public tolerance for people coming to this country in volume is at an all time low, any politician taking in a lot of people to the UK, especially in the light of the second point above is going to be in for a rough ride, and UKIP will make hay out of it very easily especially if there are any incidents.
Far better from the point of view of national security to provide plenty of money to build and guard safe areas, and start proper dwellings and proto-businesses in some place near to the trouble, less people will die as well. Of course the problem is that people having uprooted their family see the opportunity to improve their life immeasurably, and attain a European standard of living, perfectly reasonable aspiration and completely unfair to anyone else in the rest of the world making a lawful application to come to the EU.
I agree completely we should try and take in the small and manageable third group, but we are completely incapable of telling them apart from the vastly larger first two groups who have no right to our largesse.
There are not hundreds of millions of people from Europe seeking a "better life" in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Iraq, the Philippines, and in 150 other countries on this Earth.
Nor is the United States (so far) building fences along the 49th Parallel...
There is a fundamental reason for this.
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.
Hillary Clinton
Britain's an island; it's always had a constant ebb and flow of immigration - it makes it a better place.
John Lydon
But then I came to the conclusion that no, while there may be an immigration problem, it isn't really a serious problem. The really serious problem is assimilation.
Samuel P. Huntington
Illegal immigrants make a rational choice when they decide to violate our immigration laws. They weigh the costs, including the risks of getting caught, against the benefits of a better life.
Jan C. Ting
Environmentalists have been outspoken in their support of smaller family size and abortion rights as keys to reducing global warming. But when it comes to immigration, the single biggest contributor to population growth in the industrial world, they stand largely silent.
Gary Bauer
As I said, historically, countries had no problem determining refugee status - rather it is just that we have over the years, through our own procedures and appeals processes, made it so time and resource intensive that it has become unworkable. It need not be, or remain, that way.
Unsurprisingly, we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some distressing images in the media today. As usual, people are emotionally unable to process numbers '70 dead in lorry' as much as visuals '1 dead on beach'. We then get the usual browbeating that everything is our fault and that we should "do something" (generally unspecified) about it. The major responsibility for this child's death, of course, lies with the parents; statistically you are far more likely to die crossing the water in an unseaworthy vessel than by remaining in Syria in the first place.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bidens-fla-address-sounds-like-stump-speech-213280
Report to follow
Disregard.
Five consecutive comments and I get to keep the thread ....
Job jobbed!
Curses ....
In practical terms, I don't think we should get away with legalistically saying hey, refugees need to stay in the first country they reach and happily we're an island so it's not our problem. There is a general disaster going on and I want to see Britain playing a very substantial part in helping. Part of that should be taking in a decent number of refugees (10K/month extra for one year irrespective of other migration sounds a reasonably absorbable number) and part should be plenty of financial support. A link to the claim that we're paying more than everyone else put together, allowing for all the costs Germany is incurring, would be helpful.
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UK aid.pdf
I don't know a single source for a comprehensive comparison. Fairly sure UK donations will be the largest in Europe; unsure if it is more than all the rest added up or if the German costs for refugees already here are included.
Get a friend to ask a PQ !
Consider my towel to be on the cool frood's deckchair.
What Merkel has done has stoked the fires of a headlong rush to Europe from the south and the east. She has removed the incentive for the young and the fit to overthrow odious regimes. By opening the doors to those who can flee from their unhappy circumstances to the warm embrace of Germany, she has condemned those who can't leave to lives without much hope. This is a consequence the let 'em in brigade never address.
I wonder if there's a US political website discussing the madness of Corbyn probably becoming Labour leader.
Perhaps they should be told to shut up before commenting more and try and use their brains - that is if they have any.
That'd be nice, but I don't see how it involves a dialogue between nations discussing different ways to help, or how a leader is supposed to react when you've declared only one option is acceptable (many countries have to take more and we have a obligation to do something - you've made clear giving aid no longer founts as something - equals Cameron is not allowed to disagree with the plan, in effect if not intent)
Mr. Financier, I do wonder what people generally think. Media coverage appears to be generally sympathetic (there's been a petition to change the term from migrant to refugee, which appears to have at least partially been effective).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34134425
If a team can be on the podium one race and struggle, financially, to make the next, something is rotten in the state of F1.