UKC

I understand totally that accepting more refugees is not the long term answer, but neither is David Cameron's statement that the answer is to sort out the mess in the Middle East.

It may not be ideal taking in more refugees and therefore providing incentive to come here but then neither is seeing the death and suffering of families whilst politicians prevaricate.

If enough people sign this petition it might provoke the Government into pulling out their collective finger and doing something:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105991

In reply to m0unt41n:


Good point. I mean if Tony Blair can't fix the Middle East...

Nice to see a valid point being made without the need to post pictures of dead children lying on a beach as many of my no longer Facebook friends decided to do this morning.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed. Calais Action are organising short term aid convoys, details here

https://www.facebook.com/calaisaction

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed. But I would like to add a comment if that is ok:

What is making the situation more complex is that according to news reports (SKY, BBC, FR1, etc) as ever; when there are people who are genuinely at risk and in fear, then there are others who will take advantage. Thousands of people from Countries other than those affected by ISIS (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan) such as Albania, Turkey, Egypt and even Serbia and mixing in with genuine Asylum seekers in order to enter wealthier European Countries as economic migrants using this humanitarian crisis as cover. I don't have the answers but it would seem to me that the only way to sort out the genuine asylum seeker from the economic migrant is to stop the free flow of people through National borders and provide enough asylum application centres and personnel to deal with the enormity of the issue. On the scale we are witnessing this will inevitably take huge amounts of cross-border cooperation and an awful lot of time, money and border control personnel (of whatever type!). Once the genuine asylum seekers are admitted into new host Countries, then the European Nations have to consider how they send or encourage thousands of failed applicants back to their former Countries of residence. And what of the possibility of actual terrorists from ISIS mixing in with these refugees? That has been stated as a serious concern a number of times by Intelligence Agencies and politicians of many EU Countries, not just the UK.

Britain should do more, YES, but the EU Parliament in Brussels and UN should be taking the lead on this and demanding and enforcing a European wide member state strategy including huge financial resources (after all, what exactly do all the member states pay in to their coffers for!?), clerical personnel, policing, military and legal personnel amongst other obvious resources, and these resources should be dispatched immediately to all the hot spots to help those Countries that are completely overwhelmed and unprepared for the size of the problem.

This is ultimately the result of illegal interventions in the Middle East and then the failure to intervene in the same when actually required to do so. (Apologies for the very over simplified finger pointing).

In reply to ByEek:

I was intrigued to learn that the Uk was spending close to £1bn a year on international aid to the camps etc and that this was more than the other European countrys combined.

So it is a complicated picture.

I reckon we will bump this number up as a compromise..

In reply to Valaisan:

Well said.

In reply to m0unt41n:




signed it. banged on about. Shaken my head, facepalmed, and generally despaired at the huge number of people who seem to have heard one line "bloody foreigners here to steal our benefits" and then blindly followed that mantra regardless of any arguement or evidence to the contrary.

I do disagree with this bit of your post though -


I'm not saying it's THE answer (there's no simple magic bullet here), but I do find it odd that any European country can be saying 'no entry' or claiming this is some sort of short term crisis.

Ignoring the warzone refugees for a moment, we're well aware and have been for years that due to a number of variables including climate change and simply the inequality in how resources are distributed on the globe, that we're going to be seeing more and more people seeking a better life in Europe in the years to come. We simply can't stop that desire, the actual act on a large scale, or make a big enough change to the countries they're going to migrate from enough to prevent it. We HAVE to look at a solution that allows an increase in population due to increased migration, yet there seems to be bugger all plan or even consideration of this.

On another note, I'm amazed at how quickly the press has done a u-turn on the 'migrant swarm' -> 'poor suffering refugees' spin in the last week or so.

In reply to Scarab9:

Have less babies. If the current global population were to limit themselves to 1 child per person then within two generations or so the problem would be solved. Sadly, in some parts of the World, new problems would have been created as a result. Perhaps the answer is for the people of 1st World Countries or Advanced Economic Countries (whichever def you wish to apply to get to my point) to only have 1 child per couple, then there would be plenty of room for large scale migration in a few generations time.

As you say, there is no magic bullet, but alternatively as Billy Connelly once mused: "if we were all to eat one person we disliked then the problem would be halved overnight."

In reply to Valaisan:

Isn't it bad for you to eat at night ?

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed it. Also occurred to me- what the hell is the EUROPEAN UNION for if it's not for UNITING on something that affects all of EUROPE! Politicians never tackle things that won't help their career.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Signed it. Currently wondering whether a few friends and U.S. Could get together and between us house someone.
I'm too selfish to completely house a person at the moment but would be willing to timeshare our spare (ish, we often use it to cope with sleepless baby) room.

In reply to neilh:


The labour voters won't believe that

In reply to radddogg:

I don't vote Labour but... https://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R24_E16520___1509031810.pdf

In reply to Mr Lopez:

I reckon it's better to double that and we can get more help there to more people than taking in a 10 s of thousands here.

In reply to neilh:




Well said. It's a very complicated picture, but to suggest that Britain is not pulling it's weight is just plain wrong.

Are those supporting this knee jerk reaction prepared to petition for an increase in our taxation to cover this additional burden on the country's finances? Or are they suggesting that we stop paying to support the camps, because the money has got to come from somewhere? Why should Britain, already paying more than the rest of Europe combined, contribute yet more if the other countries don't at least match our contribution?

Yes, of course I'm horrified and deeply moved by the images on TV. but for the above reasons I'm not going to sign the petition as it stands.

In reply to Trangia:

See the table above. Britain is neither funding £1bn a year of aid, nor is paying more than the rest of Europe combined. It is, lets say, "journalistic license".

The £1bn figure is the total the uk has provided since the start of the crisis. £900 million in fact in the last 4 years

In reply to Mr Lopez:
It's still twice as much as the nearest other European country - Germany, and second only to USA.

Britain certainly can't be accused of not pulling it's weight.

In reply to m0unt41n:
It's impossible not to feel sad when seeing bodies on beaches but these deaths are happening before anyone is anywhere near the European asylum system and will continue no matter what we do on this side: the offer of guaranteed asylum when you get to shore doesn't stop you drowning.

I hate to agree with Cameron on anything but I do believe the help needs to go towards stopping people from needing to flee their countries.

In reply to gethin_allen:




Exactly, because what happens when we take more refugees? More come. Then more and more. Then what? Isis and whoever else gets the whole country to themselves, then the whole continent then the whole world.
Yes, a very extreme view, but still possible. As refugees find safety it will encourage the next wave, and more outrage and demands to help, until anyone and everyone that wants out gets out, and those cashing the problems will have own, and will move onto another target.
When does it end?

People are saying we're burning our head in the sand by ignoring the refugees knocking on the door, but aren't we burying our heads to the long term effects?

In reply to Tomtom:

I dont see why its either or...

Of course we need to help sort out the shit there but we can't let this carry on, 70 dead in a wagon in Austria, kids drowning..

And this 'well they should do more' we all need to do more. Who caused it is quite frankly by the way now. It's a massive humanitarian disaster and we cant wait for the years it will take to sort out the trouble at the source and not help with the refugees.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


would agree, internationally target IS in all countries, with all UN nations involved. Massive in country aid programme that dwarfs all efforts in the past, attempts at in country government reform. Plus, take refugees who exit.

Chances of success, low. Chances of success on the current path of doing nothing - Zero.

In reply to m0unt41n:

We try to distinguish between refugees and economic migrants. If only things were so clear cut, but how many of the people we are seeing on TV are now genuine refugees?

A refugee is someone fleeing a war because their life is in danger. Many of the people we are seeing have already found sanctuary in the huge refugee camps in the countries bordering Syria. These are the camps which Britain and other countries have been providing financial aid to for the last few years. OK they are not luxurious, they are grim, but at least they provide a safe sanctuary from the war. Egged on by the people traffickers many of these poor people understandably are now seeking a better life in Europe, but they have ceased to strictly be refugees and have become economic migrants.

Cameron is right, the World needs to clamp down on the people traffickers who are selling false dream to desperate people, and we need to continue battling the causes of the war, namely IS.

Rather than offering displaced people an impossible "shangri la" in Europe, because this will just encourage more people trafficking, we should be working to improve the existing refugee camps, and be working to create a safe homeland they can return to.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Yawn.

Lots about the UK and Europe but things go strangely quiet when countries like Saudi Arabia etc taking there share are (not) mentioned. Wonder what the Housing and unemployment benefit rates in Saudi are :|

In reply to Trangia:

Which is why the govt is right to take refuges from the camps only which is what they look as though they will be doing.Hopefully they will double the aid as well.

There are some heart wrenching tales I was listening to the Radio interview this morning with the lady English teacher and her family.

the media is also driving this issue. It needs well thought out and constructed solutions, not knee jerk reactions to the media hysteria and reporter feeding frenzy.

In reply to m0unt41n: I haven't signed it and I'm not going to. With the endless Facebook frenzy about letting in more migrants and (as the OP puts is) "doing something", and the endless requests that I sign this or that petition my stance might hardly be popular, but it seems reasonable.

If the UK were to do this unknown something, it won't change the perilous nature of the journey across the Med. They refugees still have to get here, so I really don't know how accepting more will make that journey any less lethal.

What's lacking from the media feeding frenzy in the UK is any serious questioning of the vanishly small contribution to aid and assistance from fellow muslims and arabs (at least from those outside the Levant). I suspect that not leaping into the fray and making populist kneee jerk movements is a better way to go. Perhaps the parliamentary debate will produce some common sense and effective long terms solutions that untangle & resolve the roots of the problem, but I doubt it.

I know it's easy to focus on the death of a small child that we can all relate to and the loss is tragic for the friends and family of that boy, but I'm not convinced that these petitions are going to do anything effective in the long term. Interestingly, not all that long ago, Gadaffi went to Rome to ask for serious help in combatting the flow of human traffickers across Libya. He recognised the problem and knew that something needed to be done, but I don't think he got very far, or he was simply ignored because everyone knew he was relatively mad, bad and dangerous to know.

In reply to neilh:


For a start the media should stop using the expression "refugees" where most are not true refugees - see above

In reply to Trangia:


What an horrific statement. How the f*ck do you know most aren't? Yeah most are risking the lives of their kids just so they can earn more money in the UK.. Claiming benefits no doubt..

The world has probably never seen a regime as evil and barbaric as ISIS.. Their fleeing is kind of understandable..

It really disappoints me how many heartless tw*ts there are on this forum. Interesting that they keep braying the mottos of the tabloid press even after those rags who have molded these "opinions" have changed their tune.

If you found someone unconscious at the foot of a crag, would you go through their pockets looking for evidence of their nationality and insurance papers, all the while pontificating about a possible unmerited drain on national resources? Or would you try to help them?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

+1.

Alan kurdi certainly was a refugee.

As are the 3 million Syrians who have fled the impossible situation in their country. Which is one that seems likely to last for years.

Trangia, imagine you had young children and were sat in a refugee camp in Lebanon facing the prospect of that being your life for the foreseeable future. Watching your children grow up with a limited education, and their life chances disappearing. You may feel that you were not prepared to sit with your life on hold, perhaps for a generation, and may try to take a risk to return to something approaching a normal existence.

I don't think the media has even begun to paint a real picture of what causes rational, intelligent people to pay their life savings to get them and their children onto death trap boats. This is shaping up to be the challenge for our time, and at this point, we are failing it.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I'm seeing lots of that, including lots of biting cartoon particularly from the Gulf countries making exactly that point. But: Saudi Arabia - run by self-serving despots - like we didn't know that already? We can discuss it all we want but it won't change a thing in KSA or UAE. The problem remains.


Actually, there was lots of EU money spent in Libya on migration related support during Gaddafi's time. In 2010 he demanded 5bn EUR a year to stop "Europe turning black" (delightful eh?) but he got 50 million EUR in the Migration Cooperation Agenda signed between him and the EU Commission, but Libya had got EU money previous to that. Additionally Gaddafi had done a deal with the Belusconi govt. bilaterally I think in 06 or 07. The Italian's paid tens of millions a year (some sources say billions over the years) to off shore migrant processing to Libya in the same way Australia has done to Nauru and PNG (breaking international law in the process incidentally).

In reply to Oldsign:

So much better to be an irrational, virtue-signalling, emoting Guardian-reading moron dedicated to emotional blackmail and attempted manipulation.

Who cannot think through the obvious long and medium term consequences of a simplistic knee-jerk reaction, goes around calling people of different, more balanced and reasoned views "tw*ts", talks about "braying" and refers to newpapers whose slant he does not like as "rags".

The bigotry, viciousness and intolerance of the fascist left is only matched by their stupidity. So no, you don't win the "high mindedness, I'm so superior to all of you because I CARE so much" award of the year, nor even of the day.

In reply to Simon4:

"Simon4
Small, ugly, balding, opinionated, bad-tempered and anti-social. And those are my good points...

...Interests outside climbing: devil's advocacy"

True to form eh Si? Obvious troll is obvious...

In reply to Oldsign:


You're just confirming his caricature of you. Your default position if somebody has a different analysis of how to solve a problem to you seems to be that they are "bad". You are apparently unable to comprehend that there may be alternative positions to yours which are the result not of "bad" motivations, but of a different and, dare I say it, sometimes superior analysis.

One of the many negatives about your attitude is that it attempts to suppress open and sensible discussion of important issues.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ubiquitous troll is ubiquitous... :p

In reply to Oldsign:


What on earth do you think that means? And what do you actually think a "troll" is ?

In reply to m0unt41n:


Surely that is exactly what the long term solution should be, theoretically speaking of course? (my bold above)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Am I being too subtle for you?

In reply to Oldsign:


That is one possibility so please bring it down to my level.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No.

In reply to radddogg:

Nice generalisation. Did you know all Tories are nasty?

I'm neither, & I'm joking.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Wait... is Katie Hopkins down there too?

In reply to Oldsign:

No, As one of the (actually increasingly centrist) left wingers S4 despises, PP isn't trolling and his posts are usually worth a read, even if I don't always agree. S4, on the other hand uses deliberately hysterical and provocative language to to do just that, provoke a reaction. Sometimes I wonder if he's one of our old Prof of philosophy's sock puppets. Either way, not worth engaging with.

In reply to Timmd:




Many a true word spoken in jest

In reply to Oldsign:


OK, I'll stick with my original conclusion: that you don't know what "ubiquitous" means, don't know what a "troll" is, and don't have the wit to defend your original position. Is that subtle enough for you?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Fine. I'll stick with my conclusion: that you don't know what "ubiquitous" means, don't know what a "troll" is, and don't have the wit not to advertise it on an open forum...

So... how about you?

If you found someone unconscious at the foot of a crag, would you go through their pockets looking for evidence of their nationality and insurance papers, all the while pontificating about a possible unmerited drain on national resources? Or would you try to help them?

In reply to Oldsign:



So, enlighten us: what does " a troll that is everywhere is everywhere" actually mean and why do you think S4 is trolling as opposed to saying what he thinks?



Obviously I'd try to help them but it's an utterly misleading comparison. That you apparently can't recognise that probably explains why you don't appear to understand any of the complexities of the issues at stake and are unable to understand that their are legitimate arguments for a number of alternative policies.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But Simon4 isn't actually saying what he thinks should happen, he just wants to do his normal "Guardian reader" rant. I presume his position is we shouldn't do anything as its not our problem, but he's playing the man not the ball, so we can just guess from his past comments.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Did it really take you that long to google ubiquitous?


Legitimate arguments for abandoning our current obligations under international law?

In reply to Oldsign:

Are you forgetting the the Weapons of Mass destruction?

In reply to TobyA:

He's not saying what he thinks should happen regarding the migrant crisis but he is saying what he thinks about a post and poster who dismissed people with an alternative view to his own as "heartless tw*ts" which I think you'd agree is "playing the man". It seems to me to be a legimate response to an abusive post. As subsequent dialogue has suggested, actually discussing the issues is quite difficult if that is the basic premise of the interlocutor.

On the basis that the original and UKC usage of the term "troll" is to provoke reaction by posting something one does really believe then S4 is not trolling.

Actually, I rather doubt that is S4's view but I don't know.

In reply to Oldsign:


No, I was helping you. Answer the question. What does it mean FFS?


Which are?

In reply to Roadrunner5:



How can anyone dislike your post? Wow

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm dismissing people I percieve to be heartless tw*ts as heartless tw*ts and we're all entitled to an opinion

S4 is so much like a broken record that he may as well be a reddit bot.

I believe that the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 protocol should be adhered to and attempts to worm our way out of it should be derided as cowardly and heartless.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Without wishing to embarrass you, it was a dig at you mate. I really didn't think it was that oblique.


See previous my post. I think it answers your question.

In reply to Oldsign:


Being "entitled to an opinion" is not the same as that opinion being correct or even sensible.


Maybe because he has plenty of suitable targets.


How does this apply to refugees not in the UK or at the borders of the UK?

In reply to Oldsign:


You might want to work on the grammar. It did cross my mind but seemed such a strange idea that I dismissed it.


See my subsequent question

In reply to Oldsign:


And whilst we're at it:

How many refugees should the UK let in?

How much should the UK spend on supporting refugees still in the region?

What will the result of doing more of 1 and less of 2?

What are the costs to a) the countries of origin b) the destinations of doing either 1 or 2?

How many refugees or migrants might want to enter Europe or the UK in 1 year, 5 years and 10 years?

On the basis of these estimates how should policy change, if at all?

How do we judge whom to let in and whom not to let in?

etc etc.

Is it heartless to consider these and a million other questions?

In reply to Postmanpat:

But where are my manners? Apart from attacks on my posts and your chivalrous defence of poor misunderstood S4 we haven't heard what you think about the subject.

Go on mate, after you. Wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of making off topic posts simply for the sake of a good old internet ding-dong...

In reply to Oldsign:

From a very civil discussion of gun crime elsewhere a request to "Keep the debate polite, imagine we are standing around talking after a funeral, which in a very real way, we are"

In reply to Oldsign:



I really wish you hadn't done that!

In reply to Postmanpat:

There is always a problem with believing yourself to be moral and principled, it suggests that anyone who disagrees with you is neither of those things

In reply to Oldsign:



See the other threads on the topic where i've outlined my concerns amd pessimism about the whole issue and said id take 30,000 refugees (finger in air guess) but have major concerns about whether this would exacerbate the problem. I think the priority should be on supporting the neighbpuring countries and camps and facilitating refugees' return when possible.
You?

And can u answer my question on the uk's legal obligations?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree with this. I think Cameron only taking in refugees from the camps over the Syrian border is a sensible decision to discourage dangerous journeys (of course it won't stop them). Hopefully the rest of Europe will adopt the same policy.(maybe they are, i'm not sure)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thanks for the illuminating post. I don't read the threads in the pub so it was news to me.

As to our obligations, I'm afraid I'll have to oblige you to educate yourself. Google is your friend.

Actually, here's a start as I'm dead helpful me http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

In reply to radddogg:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/migrant-crisis/63394/foreign-aid-how-does-britain-...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

£474 Million in the year ending 4th September 2015, an increase on the previous year and 2nd only to the USA.

In reply to Valaisan:

and as I pointed out on another thread...Qatar has budgeted $200,000,000,000.00 to host the World Cup. Yes, that's right...200 billion dollars. Incredible really. (yes I know it's a bit of a straw man but I find it pretty offensive considering what's happening in their region)

In reply to Indy:

Saudi Arabia are (allegedly) funding ISIS and members of ISIS are clear in their advocacy of Wahhabism which is the austere form of the Islamic Faith that the Saudi rulers enforce (to the extent that non-Wahhabi followers are considered enemies of the State, including those who follow more open forms of Islam). In a meeting between the Kind of Saud and Pres. Roosevelt on board the HS Quincy in 1945, Saud agreed to sell the USA their Oil in return for Saudi Arabia buying American weaponry and the USA not interfering with the Saudi faith. Even if the Saudi's Housing and Unemployment benefits were good I seriously doubt the Syrians would be fleeing there.

http://susris.com/2011/02/14/today-in-history-king-abdulaziz-and-president-...

This is worth a watch if you haven't seen it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake

In reply to Oldsign:



>
My understanding is that a country has any legal obligation to take refugees or grant asylum to anyone who hasnt arrived in the country, which would mean we have none to those in the ME or orher arts of Europe.
Its really down to you to show me a) this is incorrect b) in what way the uk is trying to "worm out" of any UN legal obligations we have.

In reply to radddogg:

Of course they will, the current aid levels were set by Gordon Brown and it is about the only area of spending that Cameron has genuinely maintained, much to the disgust of many Conservatives.

What Cameron understands is that despite the current issues, international development spending actually reduces the pressures on our borders and is good for business.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ignoring the obvious escalation, by most established definitions, S4 is a troll, at least in his regular Guardianista rant, it is very difficult to argue otherwise. Although, a number of those definitions would identify him very much as a failed troll.

In reply to TobyA:


It also rather ignores the situation in Jordan, with close to 2 million refugees, and Lebanon, obviously not a Muslim country, but a regional neighbour with a large Muslim population and a quarter of the countries entire population refugees from the region.

In reply to The New NickB:


Wouldn’t Oldsign be more more of an internet troll with his initial post ?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Here you go lazy bum :p

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pj72vG7G2qAC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=brit...

A few examples of tactics which have been employed by this and previous governments. Labour, Lib/Con and Con alike before you get your knickers in a twist...


Try not to sprain your finger clicking on the link...

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Certainly not more so, you could argue it is trolling, you could also argue it is other things, I'd say it was a more general attack on people with a different point of view, perhaps bourn of frustration, rather than a clear act of subversion. Simon's is a well practiced rant and he knows exactly what reaction he will get to it.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes, absolutely! And of course Turkey which while non-Arab is Muslim. Lebanon is a Muslim majority country BTW, although that majority is divided pretty equally between Sunni and Shia (plus a smaller proportion is Druze, but not all Muslims see them as fellow Muslims).

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, and Turkey. I understood Lebanon to be the most religiously diverse and tolerant country in the region, but with a Muslim majority and of course plenty of historical issues with Syria, not that that is the important part of the post.

In reply to The New NickB:


Sort of (the different confessional groups all get reserved places in the political system - president, prime minister, dep. prime minister etc.) but sort of not; there has been ongoing violence including just open street fighting between different groups (often linked to Syria) in recent years - all legacies of the civil war, and you have the national army then a second army, more power powerful than the national one, which the government has no control over - Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Shia only of course.

In reply to The New NickB:

We don't know he has a different point of view to those he attacked as he hasn't given us his point of view even when PP asked him directly. I'm sure his point of view is that it's awful, horrible etc, but I'm pretty sure this is not something S4 disagrees with.

I share Simon's frustration at all this hand wringing. How many of the ~300,000 signatories have ponied up serious amounts of cash after seeing the pictures, how many of the people now tweeting about this have a standing order with charities which address this sort of thing? It's all very well people like Oldsign telling everyone how awful the govt are and how awful the UK is but I'm prepared to bet that very few are doing anything about it that involves genuine sacrifice or contributing a proportion of their income that means they take a genuine hit to their standard of living.

For instance I'm prepared to bet this guy NEVER has a family of refugees living in his house for any meaningful length of time:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RufusHound/status/639402036254130176

In reply to Tyler:
Oy, cheeky mess. You've skimmed half of my posts without reading them haven't ye?

Tut, tut, etc...

In reply to Tyler:


It's seems pretty clear to me that he has, but I let him defend himself on that.


Are you calling the "hand wringers" stupid fascists. Simon seems to be, it's pure troll. They are trying to change government policy, does that require personal sacrifice? In my experience many of these "hand wringers" are giving money and time to try and help.

In reply to Oldsign:



On the contrary I've read them and most of them are just rhetorical questions. The only thing of substance stated is that you implied UK was breaching its obligations but you offered no evidence other than a couple of links which don't really back up your point (the second link offers evidence from some parties they "risk violating international human rights laws" not that we do, equally there is evidence from others that we don't, the report is inconclusive).

I'm not saying we couldn't or shouldn't do more (we, as individuals and via the govt, should) just that you've offered the square root of f#ck all to the debate and that many enjoy being seen to care via Twitter etc. but are, in actuality, doing as much as Katie Hopkins to help.

In reply to The New NickB:

Well I'm not clear what either his or S4's views are on the subject at hand as neither have actually offered an opinion on what should be done, is Simon for fully closed borders, is Oldsign for fully open borders? Who knows?


Yeah, 'cos that's how it works, if you share someone's frustration with something you agree with absolutely everything they say including the insults

In reply to Oldsign:


Fine googling! But it's referring to things happening over a decade ago. Couldn't you find something with relevance today?

The core criticism, which seems to be based on limited evidence and to be a matter of interpretation, is that UK authorities in places like Kenya didn't wave through asylum seekers (presumably from Somalia) to the UK to have their claims examined within the UK. In return the UK argues that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in and the report says that this is only true if that county can offer adequate protection. Are you arguing that no bordering country to Syria, or no other European country like, er, France, can offer "adequate protection" to Syrian refugees. If you are not arguing that then what legal requirement is the UK failing to meet currently?

In reply to The New NickB:


Well, only if you regard any robust assertion of a position as a "troll". In any reasonable parlance I think "rant"is a much better description.

In reply to Oldsign:



Why, I'd try to help him.

If a Syrian climber had fallen off a Turkish crag, I'd be slightly less inclined to airlift him and his entire family to the UK with indefinite leave to remain, but it may well be the right thing to do.

If it was a few hundred thousand Syrian climbers plus families then some coordinated EU/UN effort would be needed with us contributing.

As for a few hundred thousand angry young chaps who aren't Syrian, haven't fallen off any crags, hate each other, (but not as much as they hate us), who are demanding access then, well, err.. Nope.

In reply to Tyler:

Charmed I'm sure. Just to summarise for you as you expressed an interest: I believe that this and previous governments haven't exactly been acting in good faith as regards the UN Refugee Convention as evidenced by the report I linked to and the recent joking by U.K. delegates to CEAS that Brirain would take 0% of the Syrian refugees and might consider going as far as doubling that figure (hilarious no?). As such, I believe we need to start taking our obligations seriously and working in a constructive manner with our international partners.

And yes I can be a bit of a wind up merchant at times but myself and the Postman have enjoyed similar exchanges in the past and it's all good humoured on my part at least.

Nice to meet you too

In reply to Postmanpat:

Rant with a purpose, repartition makes it pretty bloody clear what the purpose is!

In reply to The New NickB:

To maker it clear to the Guardianistas how wrong they are?

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's still relevant today. Some of the handful that we do resettle from these camps were born there they've been in limbo that long. And yes France and Germany take a considerable amount more than we do. Don't ask me what a fair share would be all things considered but it's certainly more that 500 odd that come in via Gateway... As for the slightly different matter of asylum seekers, the few that rock up do so I imagine because they have been educated (often highly) in English rather than Greek or Hungarian (what would you do if you thought you could be a useful member of society?).

Any roads. I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind at this stage. I've a holiday tomorrow to pack for and the missus is already giving me the evil eye so I'll have to call it quits. Nice banging heads with you though.

For further reading have a look at the refugee council's website and refugee action's too. It's quite enlightening stuff from people who do get off their arses.

Night all!

In reply to Oldsign:

Have a good trip!

In reply to Oldsign:

Never mind ISIS and the spread of Wahhabism Syria had a drought from 2006-2011, most of the farming industry was wiped out and food is hard to come by. There are 4 million Syrians living in neighbouring Countries around its border already. This is just the beginning of a mass exodus from the Middle East. Less babies Worldwide - that is the only long term answer - the rest will sort itself out thereafter.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well of course, strawmen always are wrong, that is what they are there for!

In reply to m0unt41n:

I definitely wouldn't sign it. I am happy to help genuine refugees, but not the economic migrants. David Cameron's approach is correct, accept people in Syrian refugee camps, but not those in Calais who have destroyed ID papers.

In reply to Tyler:


I'd didn't suggest that, in fact the opposite. In fact I'm pretty sure Simon's frustrations are entirely different.

I don't agree with the reasoning behind your frustration, but disagreement isn't the issue.

In reply to radddogg:


I don't think Isis have murdered quite as many people as the Nazis. This could be something to do with it.

And he did just decide to shove words into Trangia's mouth re. benefits.
Which is poor form IMO.

In reply to gethin_allen:

This is just bullshit. If these people were genuine refugees they would be happy to settle in whatever country first received them. By definition a refugee is seeking refuge from war/ persecution / discrimination but apparently Hungary Czech Republic and Slovakia can't provide suitable refuge. Somehow they stop being refugees when they can pick and choose what country they can take shelter in.

In reply to gethin_allen:



Why? That's exactly what people are saying? That they are migrants after benefits..


They killed less so far, we don't know exactly though. But as barbaric?

UKC has got incredibly heartless and right wing.. Very disappointed in people like you especially who generally come across as decent people.

Trangia can but he us openly right wing and if the generation who fear immigrants..

Re the last post? I'm flabbergasted.. Genuine refugees should be happy to remain in camps, close to ISIS, with no future, no progress, just waiting... I'm at a loss...

I don't know if you've been through harsh times, nothing like these guys, but the one thing that gave me hope was moving on and not just waiting to see if things changed. These people, like The young lads dad have already lost numerous family members to ISIS and just wanted to be far away.. And because of that they aren't genuine refugees? And that's not poor form? As said disappointing... Just maybe the poor guy was aiming for friends and family in another country, a Syrian community to feel safe in.. Many speak English or sometimes French so naturally those countries appeal. Hungarian isn't well spoken outside of a few countries.. It's natural they think the chance of work is higher in countries which speak their language.. But no they should sit, wait and not try to move on.. FFS

The U.S. Really worries me at the moment because of all the anti-immigrant rhetoric, but it's just as live and well in the UK obviously.. Awful. Just so judgmental.

In reply to Gone for good:

And 3 people liked your post but we're too cowardly to say they agree.. A new UKC low..

What a horrible view.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





This is what I don't get..
These people just want to be self sufficient, they want to live free, in safety. If you are Syrian you will most likely speak some French or English as a second language. So seeking work on safety? You'd either want English speaking nations or those in the French language family.

Where do we go? USA, NZ, AUS, Ireland, Canada.. Because we can find work due to language issues.

Why shiuldnt they have the opportunity to move on with their lives. This war has being going on for 4.5 years. Could you live in a camp for years?
Could you move to a country like Slovakia and find work? Or would it be easier in Australia or the USA?

This is a humanitarian disaster and the response of throw money to relieve guilt is doing little. We need to open up our borders. And by our I mean everyone who can provide safety and a future.

I was intrigued to learn that the Uk was spending close to £1bn a year on international aid to the camps etc and that this was more than the other European countrys combined.

In reply to aiken2:
I'd like to know your source?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-refugees-how-doe...


I'm not sure but we clearly lie well behind Germany in wanting to help.. We give a lot but in terms of taking on refugees?

I just feel we are pacifying guilt.

But say you get to a camp, a refugee camp, you are safe..

Why would you think you are then safe just a few hundred miles further on?

“The situation in the camp is beyond inhumane. People are holed up in their houses, there is fighting going on in the streets. There are reports of ... bombardments. This has to stop and civilians must be evacuated.”

The UN says that of around 18,000 civilians in the camp, including a large number of children, just 93 have been evacuated so far. It has been under government siege for nearly two years, leading to starvation and illnesses, but Gunness said things “only got worse when the fighting engulfed the camp”

Fucking migrants...

And yes Gethin. If that is sticking it down your throat? So be it.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Give ISIS the time and resources the Nazis had and you'll see an unprecedented level of evil

In reply to radddogg:

Yes, and somewhere in the middle east there are governments funding ISIS, providing arms and ammunition, supplying them with their needs. These are the really evil people.

In reply to Gone for good:

Except the far right is on the rise in the east. Hungary might not feel like the safest place in the world when there are literally brownshirts marching the streets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/11532818/Hungarys-...

A mate of mine teaches English to Hungarian MEPs out in Budapest and he tells some interesting stories. One includes sitting in posh café popular with expats when one of these neonazis marches in, gives the old sieg hiel and spits at a customer before frogmarching out.

Lovely country...

In reply to Oldsign:

You're judging an entire country full of people because of what your "mate" says? You're a racist.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol. Can't be racist coz my mate Polish Pete from the pub is half Hungarian and he's alright for a dirty foreigner...

In reply to Oldsign:


Have you done the packing yet?If so you should read this because you don't seem to understand the concept of asylum seekers and refugees.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/the...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Morning Pat Glad you've been doing some of the homework I set you. My son's swimming lesson was cancelled so I get an extra bit of trolling time before we head to the airport, huzzah!

Mallorca here we come! Try not to let the country get overrun while I'm away!

In reply to Oldsign:

It is something of a generalisation though, & they're nearly always wrong.

My Hungarian friend called Rita (pronounced with a roll of the 'R') is lovely and not the slightest bit like a neo-nazi.

From a dirt poor working class background as it happens, her family are very proud that she's gone to university.

In reply to Oldsign:

No, I'm doing your homework for you. Now, get on with your studies and you might start making some sense x

In reply to Postmanpat:

Love you too, Babes! X

In reply to Timmd:

I've got a Hungarian pal too. An ex-colleague actually (don't tell the mob but she was an economic migrant) and a thoroughly lovely lady. It was the political climate more than your ordinary folk that I was commenting on.

In reply to Oldsign:

Yeah, mine came to go to Uni and has secured a job doing something really useful. I dare say people could comment rather negatively about the political climate here, since the UN has launched an investigation into whether the human rights of disabled people are being breached thanks to Ian Duncan Smith, and due to what's been in some of the press about migrants and immigration, and Cameron talking about a swarm of migrants and Philip Hammond talking about marauding migrants threatening the standard of living in Europe.

It's pretty horrible.

Edit: I really value that somebody has disliked my post, it provides another perspective to what I've written, and makes me think afresh about what I think, so thanks for that, it's very enlightening.

The dislike function seems pointless when it comes to discussions, it doesn't add another perspective or source of information. Peace to all, including the dislikers.

In reply to Oldsign:


I've got a Hungarian acquaintance as well. I think she votes UKIP! Go figure

In reply to Oldsign:
I have spent a lot of time in Hungary and the Czech Republic over the last 10 years and can state with some truth that there is an uncomfortable level of racism in both countries as well as Poland and Slovakia. Most of this racism is directed to the gypsy/romany was population who are looked down upon as lazy, dirty, social scroungers etcetera. Not that different to the way that the Irish and west Indians were treated in the 60s and 70s.
I honestly don't think this would extend to genuine refugees and political asylum seekers and quite frankly I feel some sympathy for the Hungarian authorities. What are they supposed to do when thousands of refugees descend upon them and make it abundantly clear that they see Budapest merely as an inconvenient staging post whilst they make their way to the promised land of Germany.
My earlier point was completely misrepresented.
What I said was that genuine asylum seekers should take refuge in the first country that provides it. I did not say they should remain in the refugee camps set up on the borders of Syria or other middle eastern countries where the facilities are clearly inadequate as well as dangerous. Why should Hungary be less of a safehaven than Austria for example? Of course it is a poorer country and if the asylum seekers insist on being placed in another country purely down to its economic benefits then surely that changes the status of the individual?

In reply to m0unt41n:

I see the Local Government here in UK say it costs £50k a year to support an unaccompanied child refuge.

they get euros 6000 from European Union.

Is it better that the money goes too improving the camps you can help more people that way as we are ultimately a very expensive country.

Not sure I know the answer on this.

In reply to neilh:
It's got to be better to improve the situation where the desperate people are so children end up more likely to stay with their parents, their sources of love and emotional security etc.

Think what it must be like to leave your parents behind as a child or young teenager and go to a new country, and how that must affect or disrupt their lives, there'd be so much they'd have to deal with as a result

In reply to Gone for good:

I think it's more a case that Orban has said he won't take them and Austria and Germany have said that they will grant asylum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-34162502

Not sure the Syrians have a great deal of choice.

In reply to Gone for good:



In one of Oldwotsit's links above there was a parliamentary report criticising the UK because it has no acted "in good faith" (according to UN refugee laws) when it had made it difficult for Somalians (?) who had fled to Kenya to enter the UK so that they could apply for asylum.(Kenya apparently doesn't count as a "safe haven") The ultimate conclusion of this is that if one is to act "in good faith" the UK must facilitate the entry to the UK of anybody from anywhere who can find their way to a British embassy and make any reasonable claim to be escaping war or persecution.I think I even saw a case in which Italy was not considered a "safe haven".

It actually incentivises countries to be unpleasant to refugees so that they cannot be regarded as a "safe haven".

With a requirement as broad as this the number of people who could legitimately request to be transported to the UK (or Germany/US etc) to apply for asylum is virtually limitless (gays or religious or racial minorities in countries all over the globe, and that's before including everybody in any war zone). I can't help thinking that the UN refugee convention needs a thorough overhaul.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


That isn't racism.. But yes the eastern countries in Europe don't have a great reputation.

In reply to Gone for good:

You clearly have no idea.

So you walk out of your camp.. How do you find work? You're an illegal immigrant. These people have not been processed.

What would you do?

Personally I'd aim for friends or relatives or somewhere that I can settle where I can speak the language and get some work.

The level of refugee distrust is amazing.

You really think ISIS fighters will sit in a camp for 3 years so they can get rehomed in Spain and then attack Spain..

In reply to Postmanpat:

Let them be at risk of being killed and persecution at home, you mean*?

* This sounds emotively put, but I can't think how else to ask it.

In reply to Timmd:


Instead of making silly and offensive suggestions why don't you offer some thoughts on the conundrum?

I'll explain it to you:
Under the interpretation of the UN refugee conventions in the report cited it seems that countries such as the UK are potentially legally responsible for transporting 100 million + people to the UK and allowing them to apply for asylum. (This is presumably partly because in 1951 or even 1967 the ability of high numbers to communicate or travel such distances was probably not really envisaged.)
Presumably you would acknowledge that this is not a practical thing to happen either for the UK or for 100mn + asylum seekers? Or perhaps you think that is what should happen?

However, there are currently and will be in the future many (millions) of people in who are caught in a war zone or persecuted and richer countries have a moral obligation to try and help them.

How do you resolve this issue?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Oh grow up.

''In one of Oldwotsit's links above there was a parliamentary report criticising the UK because it has no acted "in good faith" (according to UN refugee laws) when it had made it difficult for Somalians (?) who had fled to Kenya to enter the UK so that they could apply for asylum.(Kenya apparently doesn't count as a "safe haven") The ultimate conclusion of this is that if one is to act "in good faith" the UK must facilitate the entry to the UK of anybody from anywhere who can find their way to a British embassy and make any reasonable claim to be escaping war or persecution.I think I even saw a case in which Italy was not considered a "safe haven".

It actually incentivises countries to be unpleasant to refugees so that they cannot be regarded as a "safe haven".

With a requirement as broad as this the number of people who could legitimately request to be transported to the UK (or Germany/US etc) to apply for asylum is virtually limitless (gays or religious or racial minorities in countries all over the globe, and that's before including everybody in any war zone). I can't help thinking that the UN refugee convention needs a thorough overhaul.''

If you write something like this, don't be surprised if people ask you what you mean or intend, as it isn't very clear. You only need reply 'No I don't' rather than getting all humpy, and you're rather older than I am, too.

I've a busy day, so I've not given much thought to it yet, & I don't have a more detailed response.

Have a nice day. Genuinely.

In reply to Timmd:

>

What on earth has "growing up to do with". My post, which you just copied back, was raising a conundrum. If you didn't recognise this or wanted to understand its intention you could have politely asked what conclusions I drew from it rather imputing offensive conclusions that you had no reason to believe were there.

You are usually a polite poster so I treat you politely back but if you're not I reserve the right to be irritated and robust in my reply.

And have a nice day

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'm pleased you consider me to be reasonable in the main, I post under my real name as a self censorship feature, I don't post things I am not happy to stand by. I don't see why should be "disappointed" in me because I'm not really looking please you or anyone else and don't see why you want others to do so.

Perhaps you could read into this that everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a crazy unreasonable person taking their cues from tabloids and sky news, I've thought heavily about the whole thing and it's a big complicated and emotive subject.

I think we need to distinguish between people traveling through Europe and those getting in the boats to come to Europe.

Helping those already in Europe will not save the lives of people getting exploited by traffickers and drowning.
And watching people breaking out of refugee centres in Hungary chanting that they are going to Germany seems to suggest that openly proclaiming that all refugees will be accepted somewhere will increase the numbers traveling.

In reply to gethin_allen:
So ISIS aren't that bad because they haven't killed as many as the Nazis..

They are barbaric, executing people as will.. In cruel and inhumane ways.

People are getting out, understandably, and we can't just not help them because they are safe there. The countries can't cope, the refugees don't speak the language.

What will happen if we just don't help is those countries should just give out citizenship.. Then they will be EU citizens and can legally enter the rest of Europe.

Greece cannot cope, financially it was f*cked before this.

I did expect more from you, I'm not ranting at you, what Trangia said was offensive and ignorant, you are just wrong.

People will travel regardless. They are being murdered out there, there is no safe future and they are sick of camps. Whether we accept them or not they will come over.

It's pretty easy, compared to the hardship they have now, to live and work as an illegal immigrant. Just punishing those in Hungary and elsewhere by not helping out will do nothing to stem the tide.

In reply to m0unt41n:

If anyone was wondering what an appropriate response to the arrival of refugees in your country looks like...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34162844

In reply to Oldsign:

Playing devil's advocate.
Not everyone in Germany agrees with you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34038557

In reply to gethin_allen:

The old east is still pretty racist so I'm not surprised. I was warned not to live outside of Rostock because apartments of immigrants had bee attacked.

All countries have their racist idiots, I'm really not sure what the point of your link is?

If we have any racists we shouldn't take immigrants?

In reply to Oldsign:
I'd like to know who disliked your post.. Cowards, would they rather the trains were attacked.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Now go back to the top to read that my comment re. Isis and the Nazis was giving some possible reasons why people might disagree with and give negative votes to a statement that Isis are the most evil people in ever.


I agree,



Can't see this happening and I hope it doesn't as this will likely tip the balance to the out camp in a future ballot on our future in Europe and I'd prefer to stay in.


Totally, they should never have been in the Euro and the ecb shouldn't have bent their rules to let them in.

And now you sound like a school teacher


But in what volume, if you offered someone an opportunity and they died trying to take this opportunity would you feel guilty?


Hungary is quite a nice friendly country in my limited experience, if someone was chasing me with an AK47 and the option was Hungary I know where I'd go.
Germany and Austria and doing over Hungary IMO, they tell them to apply the rules, refugees should apply for asylum in the first European country they arrive in, Hungary try and apply this and then get pissed on by Germany and Austria who say they are being inhumane and allow everyone to enter their countries without being registered.
It's like when you're working in a shop and trying to explain to a customer that they don't qualify for X as you've been instructed to do and then the boss walks up and says no worries we'll give you X anyway.

Perhaps if every country agreed that everyone needs registration in the first country they land in, provided the facilities and then distributed people where they can be accommodated.
This would make the journey through Europe easier for everyone.
But, I repeat, this will not stop people drowning in the Mediterranean sea.

In reply to gethin_allen:

nothing will stop the drownings other than stability.

but that doesn't mean we should leave the bordering states to cope.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


That is really rich coming from you, someone who hides behind the cloak of anonymity with no profile.

You are quick to criticise others without really reading what they have said. You don't offer any constructive ideas to the debate other than second hand suggestions that have already been made by others.

You are highly opinionated yet spout a load of rubbish. Rather than continually resorting to the use of the F word you really should take a step backwards, and consider that you don't actually hold the moral high ground.

Don't bother to respond because I am not interested in debating with hypocrites of your ilk.

In reply to Trangia:
You are kidding? I am IainRUK, Alan kept banning me, but I'm quite clear who I am, hence road runner... Look at my posts on running. I am one of the few posters who doesn't hide who they actually are. So yes you are being a total hypocrite hiding behind an anonymous name like Trangia... well probably wise with the racist stereotypical bilge you've come out with on this thread.

Yes I used the F word.. big wow, at least I'm not an old racist.

No its not new ideas, its basic human decency, take in those in need. That's what we need to do. Like we did with the Jews during WWII and we have countless times in history. Their land is being destroyed, the kurds have yet again been persecuted.. so no they dont feel safe in the middle east and want to reach Europe and rebuild lives ina country they can speak at least some of the language.

Or we can throw money at it and feel good whilst doing nothing.

Your statement that most of those were not genuine refugees was disgusting and you should be ashamed to hold such views about people you know nothing about, people who have faced unimaginable horrors. Your statement was totally unjustifiable.

If that is the moral high ground you occupy F*ck me! we've become a nation of racist nasty old men!

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Ahh....now I get it. Of course you can speak from personal experience. You sought refuge in the states after fleeing persecution from all the IainRuk haters on UKC.

In reply to Gone for good:
Yeah that was it..

I dont think I said I spoke from personal experience? More lies and made up rubbish.

But let me guess.. you can tell if a refugee is legit, just off the TV...

Despite some arriving in Germany with fresh bullet wounds, stun grenade injuries... fakers.

I've got to say I expect it from the more openly right wing posters like S4, Trangia.. but you generally associate climbers with holding liberal views and on UKC it is pretty clear that I and a few others are by far in the minority that the UK, and other countries, like the US, Canada, Australia, should accept 10's of 1000's of refugees and that they are genuine refugees.

Yes we should seek peace in Syria, but quite frankly that ain't going to happen any time soon. ISIS will be very difficult to oust and contain. It's not like either side will likely surrender. But I think the US will be going in very soon. I know a number in the reserves who have been called back and they seem pretty convinced it is because they are going back into combat duty. I was working at a US military base last month and they were all pretty sure that it was no just a matter of time before they are deployed out there.

In fact Trangia is more upset by my use of an F word than dead kids..

Displaced populations are not on holiday. They leave because of a matrix of issues that often are decades old. Usually its only recent events that catalyze them.
As desperate as their journeys are any return would be unimaginably worse.

The rumour mills along the conduits they use create confusion. They are also lied to and intimidated by the smugglers and patrols on the way.
They aim for Germany, France and the UK because they've simply heard of them. They view 'the West' the same way we view the 'Middle East', with a mix of myth, stereotypes and media manipulation. To many 'Romania' or 'Hungary' are as vague as Balochistan or Azerbaychan are to us.

IS / Daesh wont be neutralised until they plateau and morph into a more dividable group. That is being pushed but takes time and a complex approach. Popular media will not cover it tho the indicators of a stressed organization exist. The wests role will be more related to managing their funding conduits and leadership profiles than bombs. Already precedents exist. Iran will likely be the primary co-ordinating entity as they cover the most ground re involvement in all the aspects including displaced people.

Personally, i'd say expunge the thousands of self entitled Aussies in Fulham before turning those who don't have a choice away.

All this is a time for strong language. These events are shaping the next decade. It's also a time when the complexity of events will appear as hipocracy sometimes.
Don't let semantics trivialize what matters.

In reply to Postmanpat:




Pardon me, I was having a bad day.

In reply to beefheart:
Superb post

In reply to Timmd:

and 2 people disliked your post apologizing....
I do love the fact three people disliked my post saying what Beefheart said was superb, yet only one disagreed with him.. I have my own immigrant hating stalkers.. life's good

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Quite depressed at the levels of reactionary unthinking racist idiocy displayed on here by some, really sad.

Thanks to those of you not falling to that level and showing some basic humanity and clear thinking.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Irony?

An anonymous poster criticising others for using a different way express their opinions without revealing their identity.

In reply to timjones:

Roadrunner is probably one of the least anonymous posters on this forum.

(Apologies if I've misunderstood the sense of your post)

In reply to JayPee630:



Sorry, but would you tell me what planet your living on?

You're right, in an ideal world there wouldn't be any boarders and anyone that wanted to or needed to live here could BUT we don't live in an ideal world. The UK and Europe simply can't be the destination for anyone and everyone in the world that wants to come.

The overwhelming number of people wanting to come here are unskilled, don't speak the language, have no ties to this country and have no intention of ever returning to there original country. So, what does that mean?
You get a huge influx of people that end up looking for unskilled work which is fantastic for the likes of Tesco's and McDonalds et. .al but all its doing is keeping wages at poverty levels and displacing others onto the benefits system. I know its trendy to call British workers lazy but its a simple economic decision 40 hours of low paid dead end job = £x/week, benefits = £y/week. X-Y = working for 20p and hour.... who can blame them for choosing benefits?.

Where are these people going to live? They won't distribute evenly around the country they'll end up in the cities where all the unskilled and low paid jobs are. UK housing costs are already at crisis point. My Nephew has a first class degree in Economics from a prestigious and well known university, he works at a blue chip multinational earning an above average salary. In his mid 20's he's just about able to afford a property on the outskirts of London which would mean a £200/month and 2.5 hour a daily commute. I'm in the fortunate position of able to help him. A basic 1 bed flat within walking distance of his work was £450k . So where are all these migrants going to be living? I'm sure that there are queue's of slum landlords salivating at the thought not to mention buy to let investors who'll push property prices to even more ludicrous levels. Upshot the tax payer will be left with a monstrous bill through housing benefit which in the last 4 years alone has gone up by £2,400,000,000 (£2.4 billion)

Of course all of these migrants will be availing themselves of the totally free NHS yet have contributed nothing and will only if we're lucky contribute the tiny amount of tax payable on a minimum wage job. The other side to this the the BBC is reporting that NHS is to cut 23 drugs for cancer affecting thousands of people who will now have a poorer quality of life and die earlier. Where's the fairness in that?

Schools that are already under financial pressure will have to deal with children who don't speak the language etc. where's the money coming from to integrate them without affecting the educational outcomes of others in the school?

If you want to moan about other people being racist and unfeeling etc your going to have to offer more than just a "let them all in" where are your practical solutions to the above for instance?

In reply to timjones:



I disliked it and there's reasoning as to why above.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



They're pretty anonymous from what I can see, unless their real name Mr R Runner the fifth

I have no more idea who they are than any of the people who disliked the post.

In reply to Timmd:


No problem. I'm a grumpy old man!

In reply to timjones:

In a post above he's already said that he is IainRUK- one of the most high profile and least anonymous posters on the site...

Certainly much less anonymous than timjones or me...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



So the anonymous poster that complained about other anonymous users posting dislikes on posts turns out to be a well known UKC user posting under a different username. I think that the background irony levels are rising rather than decreasing

In reply to timjones:


Who is very open who he is...... it's not like I have hidden who I am at all.

That's not irony, I'd call it misleading by you... devious maybe..

I've said on this thread who I am and I thought most knew. Using a name which links me as a runner is hardly me trying to be anonymous. You can label me many things.. but anonymous isn't one of them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It should be on a basis of need so we can't put an arbitrary figure on that.



If more refugees were allowed here AND they were allowed to work they'd be supporting themsleves.



Very hard to estimate but longer term climate change will dramatically increase the number of (eco) migrants as vast parts of the world gradually become uninhabitable.



We need to start preparing for taking in many more people. If we can't handle the current numbers how will we manage in the future?



I think there are pretty strict guidelines but in general I think we can be fairly sure that people don't just randomly uproot themselves from their country and all that they know and love and make a risky journey halfway across the world to a complete alien society unless they really need to.



Not at all. It's healthy to discuss these things if we can maintain respect of those whose views we disagree with. If we can't do that then the conversation just degenerates into a point scoring slagging match.

In reply to stp:


Well, there are 23 million in Syria alone and if you include other countries at war or specific groups who are persecuted you very quickly get to 100 million+


Do you think there will be jobs easily available and public services to support 100 mn+ people?


So 100mn + is more than reasonable.


Exactly, how will we finance this before they come. How do you think the current population will react to these plans? Do you think it is possible in a democracy?


So apart from the refugees you think there are not "economic migrants"? Or you agree that there re "economic migrants" but that they can be easily distinguished?

In reply to Postmanpat:
I do think Syria is a pretty unique case.

Take for example Ukraine. They are/were in the midst of a civil war but I dont think the civilians were under the same threat as those in Syria.

Its why Trangia's 'most arent real refugees' was such an appalling comment, based in outright racism and sterotyping and thinking the worst of people. An incredible lack of empathy which was poor to see. So many of the comments on this thread seem to lack any empathy or sympathy with living in refugee camps for the long term. If you happen to be a homosexual you risk being thrown to your death off a rooftop, stoned.. daughters taken as sex slaves. Thought to be a spy killed in increasingly macabre ways.

Many really are treating the syrians as a sub-class of race, who should be lucky to be thrown a bit of free food and housed in temporary accommodation for as long as the war takes.

Other arab states may be better but still are not open societies and you can imagine after so many years these people want to start again. this is a pretty unprecedented surge. And yes the long term answer is peace, democracy and rebuilding in those regions. Noone has contested that, but there is also a pressing need to deal with the short term response which is the refugees surging across Europe. We all need to take in many 10'000's and later offer incentives to return if it becomes stable again. However I'd be against forceful deportations if they become established here, kids in schools etc.

I know many undocumented people in the US who have become part of society but risk deportation every time they drive their car, they can be married, have US citizen kids, even pay taxes, but they entered illegally decades ago. We need to change our immigration laws so we give such people opportunities to legally become part of society.

In the EU we really need to change the laws regarding refugees and not have it on the first country they get legally identified in. That would stop the surge. If they knew once in the EU then they will be homed somewhere and all of europe deals with the problem. It's a major failing of the EU that the border countries take the strain.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Well, the UN reckons there are currently 60 million "displaced persons". Syria is a major source of these. The Ukraine only a very small one. Don't you think that the massive demographic , religious , economic, political, and climate pressure in the ME/Africa might not create quite a few more?



Why do you think 10'000s is going to make much difference except to those 10'000s? It makes us feel better and gives us moral credibility in the world but is actually an incredibly economically inefficient and possibly counterproductive way of dealing with the problem. As I've said elsewhere, I'd take a few 10'000s for the above reasons but with huge reservations about how much harm we would be causing.
>


I don't understand what you are saying. The working assumption of refuges and migrants is that once they reach anywhere within the EU they will be able to move anywhere within schengen. That is partly the cause of the upsurge in movement, compounded by Germany's confirmation that they are welcome. The basic difficulty that governments like the UK and France have in accepting 10,000 refugees is that they think it will incentivise far more to move to Europe.


I am not clear what policy you are recommending but do you think there is any limit to the numbers we or Europe should take and if not do you are accept there are downsides both for the regions of origin and the destination countries of adopting this policy?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Having left the UK you seem very cavilier in telling us what to do!

Bluntly, inviting an imterderminate number of, on average, poorly educated people with vastly different views on religion, culture, governance etc. to the UK seems misguided to me. Funding humanitarian relief nearer to the problem seems wiser.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not if they are in need, no.

Re climate change, true. That's why we need to put money into areas like Africa and make them more resilient, GM crops etc. if we don't Europe all be under more pressure.

The way it is now the people avoid bein finger printed so they can get further in.

I'm not sure re the status of a refugee when they get refugee status in say Greece. I didn't think they would have the right to work in France.

If we take in 100,000 each we'll take in millions. We might not save everyone but we will give millions the opportunity of a normal life.

In reply to MG:



I'm not, I'm saying what everyone should do.. The U.S., The UK the EU...

It's the preferable option of course. It would be much better up go in get peace and have short term camps. But this war is now getting to 5 years old. The people don't want to continue living in temporary camps.

Re mixing cultures, I don't think that's an issue and we've done in countless times in our history

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Unfortunate but there we are. Maybe they need to sort their own problems out - our record of "going in" is hardly great.


And the lesson generally is that large influxes cause problems. As a small example, look at the election in Tower Hamlets- corrupted by different culture and religion.

In reply to Postmanpat:

There's not much I agree with you on regarding the politics, but well done

In reply to MG:



really? I don't think that is true. Sheffield has a huge mix and generally it has gone well.

There are isolated examples where it hasn't worked, but plenty of times it has.

Then what do we do?

So we don't provide military assistance, and we don't allow refugees in? Just set up camps that they live in for decades?

That doesn't seem fair on them, nor the neighbouring countries.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Well, currently there are 60 million "in need" and potentially at least as many again if problems in e.g.Iraq become nationwide. The vast majority of those coming to Europe will want to live in the rich North, so potentially you are looking at maybe 10-20 million wanting to come to the UK over a 5 to 10 year period.


We've put a trillion dollars into Africa over the past few decades with not much discernible benefit. Why do you think this will change?


Yes,and it works, so all you are doing is making it more straightforward.


Well, except if they get special permission I don't think they have the right to work anywhere until they are granted asylum. I assume that once they are granted asylum they can move within schengen and even if legally they can't they probably will anyway.


Yes, but what are the long term implications of denuding the countries of origin of their "best and brightest" and increasing the population of the host country by maybe 10% in 10 years and that increase coming from a radically different culture? It maybe that you are happy to accept whatever those implications are, but I don't believe it is racist to wonder what they are and whether , for the sake of the broader population of both regions, this is the best policy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think it is necessarily racist, I don't think your views are. I understand concerns about taking in more people.

I don't understand people like Trangia judging 'most of these' as not genuine refugees.. I think the roots of those views lie in racism.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Why do you think we can or should do more, particularly given our track record? How about the local countries, that will at least have some affinity with and understanding of the problem. The idea we have to or can solve the world's problems is wrongheaded and about 50 years out of date I think.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Iain,
You use words like racist and facist far too freely. You paint yourself as a free thinking liberal but have no tolerance of alternative views to your own. You are the worst kind of hypocrite who can cast insult upon insult on reasonable argument and stand fast on your own dubious moral outrage.
The mass movement of people from the middle east to Europe is a disaster waiting to happen for many reasons but mainly political and religious and cultural differences which Europe including the Uk cannot absorb never mind the economic arguments.
This is not mass asylum seeking. This is economic migrancy on a grand scale with asylum thrown in as a convenient excuse and Europe may come to regret it's short term knee jerk reaction to a short term emotional issue.

In reply to Gone for good:

No, I have no tolerance for racists..

I have tolerance for people like PMP and MG, people who have concerns about immigration.

I have no tolerance for people who judge people and have no information on which to base such judgements.

Honestly what you just wrote is atrocious! An excuse? Wow you just dig the hole deeper. You really do come across as a nasty piece of work. Yes these people had a perfectly safe life in Syria and just want to come here to make $$$$ the level of ignorance you just displayed is horrific.

In reply to MG:


It should be but what's the point of the UN then? but yeah I still think the UK and U.S. Should assist with say Kurds being attacked.

I think we'll see more and more involvement of the military in Syria now as its directly impacting on the EU.

Some local countries are involved.

So do you oppose our current role in Syria? We are already involved in military operations.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I rest my case!
Seriously. Have a read back on what you have just written. You have confirmed my aspersions on your ability to argue with any kind of credibility. Your running reputation far exceeds your ability to hold a balanced logical debate!

In reply to Roadrunner5:



I have concerns. I don't think we understand the situation or the likely effects of what we do. Also sooner or later a western pilot will be grilled alive. Then what do we do?

In reply to Gone for good:

Seriously read what you just posted.. That they are economic migrants using the war as an excuse... And I'm the intolerant one???

If laugh if it wasn't such a humanitarian disaster.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Isn't it obvious there will be both, often the same person!?

In reply to MG:

Re the pilot.. I think that's why we are just doing so much with drones which people dislike but you can understand why. Any pilot downed you'd think they'd just take a suicide pill.. There was some articles on them a while back but U.S. Pilots don't carry them.

I'm not sure I get your last post.

In reply to Gone for good:

How do you have a balanced debate with someone who thinks people risks the lives of their kids using the war as an excuse just to get a better job.. Have you any idea how the Kurds have suffered? Explain that to the refugees turning up in Germany with recent bullet wounds..

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Most refugees will also be to a greater or lesser extent economic migrants.

In reply to MG:


Ok, well naturally they are almost always going to a place of stability which will be more prosperous often. However that doesn't mean they are using the war as an excuse.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You need to get off your emotional high horse and inhale some facts.
Clearly some of the current masses seeking asylum are genuinely seeking refuge from war and persecution etc. But if you wish to entertain yourself by thinking that the majority or the whole fall under thus category then ask yourself this.
Why not seek refuge in the first country that can provide it? In the main, for Syrians, this would be Turkey. After all Turkey is a Muslim country with a tolerant government that has close economic links to Europe
Why insist that they receive protection in Germany? A mainly christian country that bears no resemblance to their own ethnic or cultural background?
Why are over 80% of the asylum seekers young males with no family?
Why insist that Hungary and other Eastern European countries can't provide suitable refuge. A refugee is a refugee seeking first and foremost protection from another government so they don't have to endure the agonies of war, torture, discrimination etc. What makes Germany the popular and unequivocal target for the refugees?
I wonder?

In reply to Gone for good:

Some facts? You then just list 'facts' with no source.

the fact is Aylan Kurdi's parents were trying to get him and his brother to safety and live with relatives. They weren't using the war as an excuse to be an econonic migrant. That really is an appalling accusation.

Like what wanting to go to a country where there will be a high % of English or french speakers.

Because Germany has been quite welcoming. I dont think anyone has said the other countries cant provide refuge, but many want to get to other countries for understandable reasons.

Do you have any references for that 80% figure?

And Germany is certaily not the unequivocal target for the refugees. Hence all the trouble at Calais.

In reply to Gone for good:


IT's true that there are large numbers of Kosovans, Nigerians, Ghanians, Pakistanis and various other who are within those on the move but the biggest sources are Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea, countries from which people can legitimately claim to be fleeing in order to survive.


Well, in the case of Syrians, who are the biggest single group of refugees at present, there are about 4 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries and at least same again displaced within Syria. Presumably what happens is that those who are fleeing and have the wherewithal will decide that their best future lies in a wealthier country where they can establish a life rather than rotting in a camp in e.g..Jordan. This represents maybe only 5% of the total Syrian refugees. Yes, they've made that choice for economic reasons (Wouldn't we all in their situation?) but their decision to leave their homes was forced on them. Hence they are legally regarded as refugees.

Because they can take the risk and it costs them less to move away from the camps. It doesn't stop them being refugees.

In reply to Gone for good:



You wrote "This is not mass asylum seeking. This is economic migrancy on a grand scale with asylum thrown in as a convenient excuse". I have no idea if you are racist or the world's greatest anti-racist, but as this thread is about Syrians fleeing a brutal war, I do know you are quite incredibly wrong with that statement.

In reply to Gone for good:


I presume you're not being ironic here, are you?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

As tragic as that poor boys death was his Father went straight back to Syria to bury the body.
Let the facts speak for themselves.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I just love the way you sit on your moral high horse, as an immigrant to the USA, lecturing us Europeans about how many people we should let into our countries that you have forsaken for a better life.

In reply to Lusk:

Eh? You are the one judging..

My wife's in medschool here. So Love brought me here.. one of us had to move and she'd started med school, so I opted to move.. and she'd love for us to return.. so I'd imagine its very very likely we will live back in the UK within the next decade.

I'm also European by the way.. and still a British citizen with the right to vote. As an academic movement is pretty normal, I've lived and worked in NZ, the US and Germany as well as the UK. No move was searching for a better life, it was just where the jobs were. This move was simply we couldn't carry on doing trans-Atlantic and as I was finishing a post-doc it made sense for me to move. I certainly didn't leave for a better life.

BTW I'm not sure life is better in the US, I think its different but I'd prefer to live in the UK TBH. Politically I'm far too liberal for the US, especially with all the anti-immigration rhetoric, but we have a baby due in 2 months and a medical education to complete so a move any time soon is unlikely. But as a center left I find the lack of welfare and health cover poor in the US and the society in general pretty uncaring.

In reply to Gone for good:



Clearly he was just on the make...

Or maybe he'd lost everything, his wife, his kids, the one's he was hoping to take to safety. So he returned to bury his loved ones with his and her family.

Wow. You really do just dig deeper and deeper. How can you judge what a father should do after the death of his wife and kids? I'd imagine right now he's not overly concerned about his own safety nor economic situation.

Just wow.

In reply to Gone for good:


He went to effing Kobane to bury his family. You do realise what has happened there don't you and why he and his family left?

The USAF haven't bombed anywhere so heavily since the 2003 invasions of Iraq. You should look up what the pilots call "going Winchester" (presumably from the rifle, not the town).

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I don't think you're really saying anything at all radical. We should help people in need. I'm staggered you seem to be taking so much heat for what is ultimately compassionate reasoning. (that said I only read the last 50 or so posts so maybe Im missing something) ...a weird new effect of the 'like' button is it makes the opinion you're expressing seem unpopular and I hope that's not the case

There's a lot of protesting in Germany about immigration. (I was in Dresden last week) All of the protesters are neo-nazis. I dont just mean far-right wing. I mean actual Nazis. Which I can believe can provide a sort of moral compass or social barometer.

Of the displaced people that reach places like western Europe many will use public resources like the NHS, social security, public housing etc. Many will work illegally, not paying correct taxes and some will even engage in criminal activities. In this respect they will act as a normal sector of any society.

Like born nationals they will be subject to minimum wages that are disturbingly low, though that is a matter of government / business policy more than the actions of bottom-tier workers. Unlike born nationals, refugees will possibly have less platform to address it with, being more subject to wage abuse. To this they will be far more exposed.

Many refugees that get as far as northern Europe will come from middle class backgrounds. The poorest of any compromised population tends not to migrate far, if at all, and the wealthiest arrive with passports and simply dont go home. Those that migrate as refugee surges usually have life skills relevant to employment. Many will have educations and speak multiple languages. What makes them refugees is that the risks of staying at home outweigh those of leaving.
The outcomes of dropping through the cracks in somewhere like Syria, Afghanistan, Albania usually involve a level of insecurity westerners will never know. Child prostitutes from Syria have shown up as far afield as Algeria.
Some refugees, rather than waiting till they hit that level, have chosen to leave whilst they still can. Some will have watched elements like war, IS / Daesh, lawlessness etc gradually encroach for years, until the line was crossed. Many will have planned their flight for a long time before. Some will never have had a solid future to plan for as they knew one day this would come.

Some refugees will come from skilled and affluent backgrounds, having left their homes because basics like electricity, water, customers and ways of importing goods etc no longer exist. Note that some of their homelands have sanctions upon them and / or are strangled by supply lines controlled by unfriendly groups.

Some, perhaps like the father of the boys who drowned, leave because war zones are not ideal places to raise children. Schools are often targeted or closed. Clean water is unlikely. It makes sense he went home when his children died, his reasons and options had changed.

These events are economies of need. If citizens of western countries decide their needs outstrip those of central Africa or the Middle East it says a lot about them. If those countries decide to turn away the spectrum of refugees they must acknowledge that choice and not deny they acted that way. They must not blame the lest enfranchised members, ie the refugees.
The numbers just need to be shown honestly, that most refugees do in fact go no further than neighboring countries, that those neighboring countries may be saturated and / or have their own economic and internal problems. It is worthy of note also that many neighboring countries contribute to the conflicts that give rise to displacement of populations initially. Next door may not be a good option. It is also worth noting that of the countries producing the most refugees, many are also accepting the most.
Some of these refugees have watched the way western countries bailed out their banks and corporations and to them it looks like paradise.

Exodus by displaced people is the history of our species. Most of us come from such stock, many need only look back a few generations. In the 70's a similar discontent centered on refugees from east Asia and the wars of that era in central Africa. Today those people just simply form society. Next time you eat at a Chinese, Ethiopian or Bangladeshi restaurant ask where their family came from, why they left and how they arrived. Next time you take a cheap holiday be sure to wander further than the resort and have a look at the construction sites, docklands and farmlands.
It is surprising how many refugees we are already living amongst, and how 'normal' most are. Some are even white.

Accepting foreigners who have traveled under duress into a conservative society like the UK of course will cause problems, though most of them not new, simply extensions of the same problems caused by born nationals.
Another factor will be that, like it or not, this issue exists and cannot be denied, and countries like the UK,US, Germany, Australia etc need to chose if they are part of the solution or not. If these affluent nations that apparently display such concern for the world really have what it takes to assist. Its not a matter of saying affluent nations can better assist by one way or another - this scenario is far too complex, and as is being played out, whatever wealthy nations have been doing to 'help' doesnt seem to have been working, resulting in what we have now. Failure to prevent these situations means we all live with the outcomes, though for those of us in 'go to' countries, those outcomes are somewhat tolerable.

In reply to beefheart:

Have you actually read up on why the father of the boy left?Who financed the family. Might be worth you checking your facts before you write such a diatribe.

In reply to beefheart:



An interesting post, but maybe rather naive. Suppose that the current levels of migration are not the one off result of a specific conflict, that this conflict is just one symptom of a great migration of which we are in the early stages: that both upheaval in some regions and growing incomes in others will provoke and facilitate the movement of tens of millions of people to Europe?

There us a real possibility that the speed and size of this migration will undermine the very thing that attracts people to Europe: a relatively strong economy and a collectivist welfare system that provides for the less fortunate based on an assumption across societies of mutual trust and cooperation . Can these things survive a mass immigration of people who initially at least place great strain on these systems and who don't necessarily understand or share these values?

Does it matter if welfare systems and trust across societies break down in these circumstances?

Having just spent the last 2.5 years directly involved in analysis of displaced groups in the region, half of it on the ground, my naivety is in thinking it was worth commenting here. Regards.

In reply to beefheart:

In which case i apologise for the use of the term and would be interested in your answers to my questions. You obviously have knowledge worth sharing. I perhaps wrongly thought that because you hadnt referred to those issues you didnt think them important or simply didnt view those things as a risk.

In reply to Postmanpat:



I think that encapsulates the key issue for most people. It seems to be glibly assumed that we can 'cope' with an additional 10 to 20 million, (Iain seems to think this is within the capacity of the UK on it's own), with negligible impact on community cohesion or social services.

The NHS and social services are creaking as we debate this, theres simmering hatred and resentment in places like Bradford and Oldham, and as MG has pointed out places like Tower Hamlets have had electoral practices that would embarass Zimbabwe.

It's not just "racist old men" who have concerns about this, so do settled immigrant communities. The anti-asylum protestors in Germany may have been "all Nazis", but people who wouldn't dream of attending such a demonstration will also have concerns. The asylum seekers in Germany seem to enjoy a good ruck between themselves at the reception centres without any Nazi help, and I'm sure there will be similar occurences in the UK. (What happens 10 years down the line after ISIS has been bombed to oblivion by the Great Satan and pro-IS asylum seekers fleeing persecution by the Peshmerga or similar rock up in Europe is anyone's guess).

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that we can cope with a virtually infinite number of people over the coming years without some very unpleasant consequences for Europe.

In reply to Ridge:

Who the hell did I say that.. I said our population can go up, which it clearly will.

I can quite clearly understand concerns, PMP and MG make good arguments. Trangia doesn't.. he can just tell most aren't proper refugees.

I think it is naive in the extreme to sit back and do nothing, thinking that by not helping it will stop them coming.

How many millions have flooded into the US for no benefits or welfare support. The work available on the black market can support them quite comfortably compared to their life out there.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Not specifically you, although you did state Sheffield has no problems at all with socual cohesion. There have also been some very good posts by 2 or 3 posters who work in that sector, but all of them seem very dismissive of the effect on social services, schooling , healthcare and law and order in the host communities.

In reply to Ridge:

And as I pointed out to my 15 year old daughter there are thousands of children already in the UK who are desperately searching for foster parents or in need of adoption.

Where do they fit in?

I do not have the answers. Will they be bumped down the queue?

In reply to Ridge:

Regarding Germany..

That's going to be complex, there is still guilt in Germany about their past, so many will really go out of their way to show it an open and friendly country. However on top of that you have a high support for neo-nazis. In Rostock the far right party still had around 15% of that vote.. This was an area the RAF hit hart because they heavily supported the Nazis and support remains some of the strongest in Germany, so attacks on immigrants are common there. To counter that others will go out of their way to be super friendly, ashamed that such support still exists.

In reply to neilh:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/we-need-to-look-after-our-own-fi...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I don't think anyone (here) is suggesting doing nothing. Rather the argument is that accepting potentially unlimited numbers of refugees is not the best way to help.

In reply to TobyA:


People can have multiple motivations for doing something: they can be leaving both because it isn't safe AND because they could have a much better standard of living in the EU. Once someone gets out of Syria and into a camp in Turkey or Jordan they are no longer in danger from the war in Syria but they are in massively worse economic circumstances than what they had in Syria before the war. The primary factor which motivates them to leave Syria may be danger from the war but the primary factor which motivates them to spend money and risk their life getting getting from Turkey to Munich is economic.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Mmm..so whats the real answer...I suspect we will just muddle through and gawp in amazement at German efficiency for handling these things

In reply to neilh:

Which answer? The answers to the whole refugee debacle? The answer is that there is a large number of experts, consultants, and politicians, who get paid large amounts of money by us to come up with the answers.

It is downright naive to expect to get those sort of answers to global and national problems out of the accountants, plumbers, marketing consultants or hairdressers that use this or other public forums.

But not having the answer doesn't preclude knowing what's not the answer, the same way that even though i have no medical training and wouldn't know how to treat, let alone heal, testicular cancer, i do know that kicking the patient in the balls with large steel toed capped boots will probably not do much for the cancer or the well-being, let alone his mood.

So as for the current situation, i know that sticking the head in the sand and going "la,la, la, la, la,la, la,la ,la, la, la.." will not solve this, or any problems for that matter. i learnt that when i was 4 or 5 years of age. Therefore i'd expect the people who are being paid by us to come up with solutions to do just that, and stop with all the hand-wringing and "it is not our problem if it's on the other side of this bit of water", "we already give money", "if we help 10 people then we will have to help 10 thousand million trillions of them", "but, but, but, but why if we let them in and they start dubbing coronation street to muslim?", bollocks

In reply to Trangia:


I would, gladly.

I hope someone will step up to help me should I ever find myself in the desperate position these refugees are in. And if I never need that help I shan't feel cheated out of the help I've given, I shall be eternally grateful for my good fortune because that's all it is that separates you and me from these people dying in pursuit of a life, chance, not our money, assets or education.

When did Britain become such a pathetic, mean spirited, fearful little place.
jk

In reply to m0unt41n:

How well has Britain assimilated its existing refugee case load?

In reply to Ridge:

Another, in my view understandable, consideration is that economic migrants in amongst the refugees are ultimately queue-jumping on the back of refugee status.

There are millions of people around the world queuing up to legally gain access to Europe or elsewhere. They undertake the paperwork, pay the costs and ensure they are completely above board in order to do so. Many from arguably poorer backgrounds than the "law student from Damascus" venture abroad for near slave labour conditions (Nepali's to Malaysia, Indians to Dubai, etc).

All would love the opportunity to work in Europe and it strikes me many would be entirely content with Greece, Hungary, Italy or elsewhere. As sympathetic as I am to those fleeing warzones, there was something galling about the interviews with those recently arrived in Budapest who were complaining about Macedonia, Greece and then Hungary, demanding they have instead access to the very best states in the EU for welfare and employment opportunities. They were then seemingly content to have a near riot to ensure they go their way.

That's great. But what about all those others who have been patiently waiting in line for their opportunity to do so, obeying the rules or otherwise content to work in far worse conditions for paltry sums elsewhere on the planet?

In reply to David Martin:

Greece isn't really in a position to lend stability to a massive influx of people. Macedonia I know little about. Hungary made it pretty clear it didn't want them and Germany has made it pretty clear they'd be welcomed with open arms. Should they then still insist on staying in Hungary?

In reply to David Martin:

Your comment about Greece makes no sense at all, given the parlous economic state they are in.

In reply to radddogg:

They were trying to go to Canada. Kurdish Syrians who had no passports ( because no passports issued to Kurds in Syria, which then gets more complicated as Turkey does not recognise the Kurds). A sister in Canada was paying.

get with it.

In reply to neilh:

I've deleted my post after reading your post and then googling it. I'll update my barber next time I see him...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3225320/Penned-13ft-fences-topped-r...

And this is what they now face in Hungary.. seems like they were right to want to push further into Europe..

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I get that Greece is a far from ideal in terms of opportunity. But a refugee is, by definition, not in search of opportunity - they are in search of safety. Plenty of Greeks themselves haven't exactly jumped ship to Germany or elsewhere in Europe (although there may be reasons for that).

I just find it odd that a refugee, someone fleeing a warzone, is angry at having to settle in Macedonia (ok, maybe not great), Greece (not much in the way of opportunity, but it is safe at least), Hungary (hmmmm).

In reply to David Martin:


If the idea of each EU country getting a 'quota' comes to fruition some will be even angrier after making it to Germany and being re-settled back in Hungary.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
I know its not fashionable to say, but so what? It looks like a typical refugee camp, probably comparable to what they would find in Turkey, but probably much better. If you are a refugee, then surely a refugee camp is satisfactory? It is relatively safe and your immediate welfare should be catered for. Camps not that dissimilar, admittedly without the razor wire (but in the circumstances, I can see why they have it), were good enough for Japanese as temporary accommodation after the tsunami with many still living in basic accommodation. Why are they not good enough here?

Again, I don't see why refugee status should be an automatic fast track in to the country of your choice, and presumably a 3-bed house and sedan in the driveway. The normal rules of immigration are being put to one side due anyway due to the emergency nature of the situation. The flip side of that is that you will likely have to put up with some less than ideal conditions. These countries on the receiving end, are suddenly having to deal with an unexpected influx of people who have no means of support, no home to go to. Its not an easy situation to resolve and I suspect even those putting out the idealistic "let them all in" line will be wishing to draw a line sooner or later.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Genuine question. Can someone explain where we have gotten £900million from in the last 4 days? I thought the country was flat broke and due for another round of spending cuts?

In reply to cap'nChino:

Days? Read again.

In reply to David Martin:
Because some of these people can be in the refugee camps for years. They are now actually just temporary cities.

But they get treated better in other countries, so why not target countries which will treat you well. Would you not do that? Would you not want to get to a country where you can live in freedom after years in camps, where your kids could have some chance of a normal existence and even a chance of an education. If they make western Germany or France and have some English or French as a second language their ability to integrate, find work and live a normal life is massively increased.

Which is why this should be a European level response, with people being treated the same no matter which country they first appear in, and with some dignity. behind razor wire is no way to treat kids.

Re japan, because it was always temporary, it was just shelter whilst the actively rebuilt.. no just sat waiting for the houses to rebuild themselves or the war to end like these have.

I was looking at some of Pamela Geller's articles and some of her articles are scarily similar to views cast on here (not by you).

http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/refugees-in-europe-young-fit-and-overwhelmi...

http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/story-told-by-father-of-drowned-toddler-ayl...

When you start holding similar views to that woman maybe it's time to take stock and reconsider...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I get all that. But again, if the goal is to flee war and imminent death, which is my understanding of what refugee status is, then the fact that you end up in a refugee camp that doesn't match up to the trappings of an idealised Western lifestyle would be the least of your concerns. Maybe after 6 months or so it might become an issue. But it seems just being in any camp for any length of time is being deemed unacceptable.

You ask what I would do? I would just be happy that I am no longer at risk of being barrel bombed or having ISIS attack me. That I am finally in a safe haven, having a roof over my head, and an assured food and water supply would be enough in those circumstances. In fact I think I would be just hugely relieved and grateful to whichever country took me in. In the short term, anything more is a bonus but far from being a right I would consider demanding.

As for the need to integrate and find work, why is this important? Isn't the refugee status temporary? Isn't the claim that these people want to return to Syria at the first opportunity? Its obviously beneficial to all to find work, but what about all those other members of society who have been struggling it out here and would love a leg up to get work? The EU isn't exactly booming at the moment. I'm fortunate to have a job, but I can quite understand why plenty who are struggling at the bottom of society might not feel entirely heartened by extra lengths being taken to accommodate complete outsiders who appear ungrateful that they are having to start at the bottom of the ladder.

We all want to be seen to do something. Especially when the situation is (incorrectly in my view) being compared to the exodus from Nazi Germany. And it pains me that I don't feel willing to come out with the usual liberal line on this. But having run out of cash and a roof over my head in the middle of a London winter many many years ago, where I would have been eternally grateful for even a refugee camp tent and the promise of a meal, I would expect someone who claims not to be an economic migrant to be eternally grateful for what little they are getting so far.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Its very easy to come out with some trite line that we should take all migrants, do away with borders and give every refugee that knocks on the door a living wage. Doesn't bother me, my taxes are taken regardless, I don't have to deal with it. We can all compete to come out with the most right-on line, the most liberal stance, and look to be the most compassionate.

But as far as I am concerned, these people are already safe. Yes, their conditions can be improved and the UK has a role in doing that. However, when their goal switched from finding refuge, to finding the best possible social and economic system outside of that refuge, they switched to being economic migrants. At that point, sorry, join the queue with the rest of the equally deserving individuals.

Rather than using the far harder viewpoints found in the right-wing press to invalidate that opinion, perhaps instead explain why these recent arrivals should have the right to demand what appear to be preferential rights over the others?

In reply to David Martin:

I think the kurds are very similar to the situation Jews faced in Nazi Germany. I'm pretty sure many don't want to go back and live in Syria unless there is some form of independence/autonomy. Personally if I was from Kobane I'd be off to Europe and laying low, I'd not be wanting to be deported should say Assad finally win. I'd certainly not feel safe in Turkey.

They are a group who have no 'home'. In Syria they are often seen as immigrants yet who have been there for a century, which was after the armenian genocide.. Since then they haven't feared much better and have been attacked in Syria and Iraq.

You can understand many never wanting to go back to Syria. The government hasn't protected them. What's the answer? Establish an autonomous state for the Kurds in that region? It's sort of happening now but taking land off others to establish an other country has echoes of Israel.

In reply to David Martin:

>

They aren't far harder views. These are almost word for word comments you can read in this thread.

'why did Aylans father go back to Syria if it was so unsafe'
'They aren't real refugees'
'Why are they all men'

In reply to David Martin:


Because they've already been under constant threat of violence plus often years in camps, and for many going back won't be a valid option.

We do have to act fast. At the moment its september and sleeping outside is a valid option, in 1-2 months many will die unless we can find some solution. And I don't think that is prison camps and them running the risk of being deported. They will just go underground and live undocumented.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

There was an interesting interview on 5 live this evening. A BBC reporter was interviewing an Iraqi refugee in Germany, I think it was Munich.
The interview went like this:
Reporter: how did you get here? Land? Sea? Air?
Refugee: all of them, ten days to get here.
Reporter: Do you feel safe now you are in Germany?
Refugee : Yes Germany very good.
Reporter: Where will you go now?
Refugee: UK. UK very good. I want to go to UK.
Reporter: But why? What's wrong with Germany?
Refugee : Germany not good. I want to go to the UK.
Pardon me for labouring the point but that didn't sound like a genuine refugee.

In reply to Gone for good:

He speaks English...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

So do most Germans.

In reply to Gone for good:

Well it depends but he speaks OK english so will find work easier.

To say someone from Iraq is an economic migrant is superb...

Right up there with the level of knowledge you have about Syrian Kurds..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


This is part of the problem. Those complaining we aren't doing enough are making contradictory claims. There was a bleeding heart video on Facebook today that was labouring the point about how the refugees don't want to stay here and at the first opportunity will be off. You are saying the opposite. Equally, we are hearing the claim that they are refugees but then we should be allowing for their economic migration.

Regarding the Kurds, I would think that now is a better time than ever to be in Kurdish areas. They have huge US support, are sitting on massive oil resources and are very close to gaining at least greater autonomy, but possibly a state of their own. If I was in Kobane, I would have been high-tailing it for Erbil, but that doesn't mean life chances in Kurdish areas are necessarily terrible. At the very least Turkey would be good enough - its not perfect, but it is safe enough.


Those are not "hard" views. They are fair questions and if asking them is considered offensive then we are in a pretty sad state of affairs.


I take it we will ensure all the already homeless in Europe are swept up as well? What about ex-cons who are in need of housing support and rehabilitiation? Drug addicts, prostitutes, recently unemployed, fallen off the rails? They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I like the way the pre-existing problems we have can be left to fall through the cracks, are accepted as ongoing problems without easy solutions or can be put to one side, meanwhile this entirely external issue demands unlimited resources to resolve.

Just who are these people who have made it to Macedonia and aren't happy? Who are they in relation to the hundreds of thousands who have remaining in Turkey or Lebanon? Why are these ones expecting to receive more while the vast majority are accepting the difficult conditions? I don't begrudge them for wanting more. But I don't think they are necessarily representative of most refugees and I have serious concerns about just how genuine these cases are. Again, are they refugees? Or are they economic migrants?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Without wanting to sound like a broken record, someone from Iraq may indeed be a refugee - up until the point they reach their first safe haven. That happened a long time before they arrived in Germany.

After that point they become economic migrants. You seem to think they deserve preferential treatment over all those other economic migrants?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I refer you to David Martins earlier post.
Further argument is a futile exercise.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




It's entirely possible they are. Most of Iraq from Bagdad south is stable enough.

In reply to David Martin:



I've already said of course they can be both, but that doesn't stop them being refugees and we cant expect people to live in prisons for 5-10 years.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


They are not prisons. And why not, particularly given David's points about our own people with problems

In reply to MG:


For now..

Much of Iraq was stable not long ago, so was much if Syria. Would you work in Iraq at the moment?

David,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and...

So Turkey provide support for El Nursa, who also attack Kurdish areas..

Never mind the history between Turkey and the Kurds..

It is perfectly understandable why you would want out, especially as Turkey won' recognize them because Syria wouldn't, so Kurds are unable to get exit visas.

You seriously think Turkey is an appropriate location for long term refuge? You think they'd get a fair hearing? I wouldnt go there if I was Kurdish for sure.

In reply to MG:

They are locked up camps with razor wire fences..

I think the daily mash article covers that point. That's just dodging the question to help no one.

In reply to Gone for good:



You've not provided any arguments just insulting stereotypes and ignorance hence why you wouldnt answer TobyA's points earlier.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



So in your view anyone from an area that might become unstable is a refugee? (S Iraq won't anyway - it is mostly Shia)

In reply to David Martin:

I never thought I'd say this given your, (and my), forum posts over the years, but very well put.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I recognise that Turkey isn't a utopia or on par with developed Western nations. Turkish citizens, Kurdish or otherwise, can be persecuted by the state. But by my reckoning, this political state would be enough to internally displace people within Turkey, push them to border countries, encourage them to seek legal (specifically non-refugee) status in Western nations, and only as a last resort and to a very small number encourage them to seek refugee status as far abroad as Western Europe.

That they should expect refugee status automatically lead to rights of abode on the most developed Western European nations, let alone in the number we appear to be receiving seems extreme. For a Syrian Kurd, fleeing imminent death at the hands of Assad or ISIS, the political considerations of life within Turkey would seem trivial in comparison, and this seems to be borne out by the numbers that do take up refuge in Turkey. Beyond that, life in Macedonia, Serbia, Greece or Hungary would be a comparative luxury - the only drawback being the difficulties of finding work, a problem faced by millions of citizens in their own countries across Europe anyway.

In reply to MG:

Yes.. if ou dont trust the stability and think another war is about to start.. then yes get out and be a refugee. Or do they have to actually wait until the tanks are on the high street.

Anyway we don't know where he was from in Iraq but S Iraq is still be affected by ISIS.

Its possible they aren't from Iraq, anything is possible, however its very possible they are from a highly dangerous part of Iraq.

Did you avoid the question on purpose?

In reply to Ridge:

I may be becoming a fascist in my old age. I can only hope you are taking up the mantle of becoming a pinko liberal in response

In reply to Roadrunner5:




What question. It was your claim that any Iraqi seeking to immigrate must be a refugee that was cobblers.

In reply to David Martin:

They can't leave Turkey. They go to turkey because from there it is close to Greece, and comparatively safer than where they were, but it's no long term option.

And yes I do think refugees should jump the queue and be re-homed in a suitable location. I think they've been through enough and should be given every chance to return to normality. I can understand them wanting to push through the whole balkan region.

In reply to MG:

The sentence with a question mark at the end..

In reply to MG:


Rubbish. You are attacking me for supposedly saying what wanderer said..

That a person must be X. He said the person was an economic migrant over a refugee. We don't know that at all. You are talking cobblers and you know it.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

What has me working there got to do with it? Would I if I was an Itaqi from there? Yes.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Really, I'm sympathetic to your view but I just don't understand it and I don't see how we can "re-home in a suitable location" these people when we can barely do that for people who are already here.

People already in the queue have problems of their own, which in their own way could be as bad if not worse than what a Syrian has been through.

Just because someone is Syrian doesn't indicate whether their lives have been directly placed at risk, even whether they are pro- or anti- regime, least of all does it tell us if they are making use of a convenient opportunity to get access to Western Europe that would otherwise be denied. You seem to imply that their nationality means carte blanche acceptance of that though.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You said
"To say someone from Iraq is an economic migrant is superb..."

What did you mean if not that all Iraqis deserve refugee status?

In reply to David Martin:


Erm... OK. The RAF callously bombing those two young British chaps on their gap year in Raqqa. I'm outraged.