UKC

Forced eviction of refugees in Calais

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 SenzuBean 01 Mar 2016
Have been following this fairly closely, and to be honest it's pretty f(&(*ng disgusting the way the French police and authorities, and the media - have handled the situation. These refugees have survived in many cases multiple tragedies, and now are enduring yet another one.

First the French authorities authorized the destruction of the south camp, which would peacefully and respectfully move 1000 people. Well for a starts there are about 3000 in that area of the camp - they don't have "homes" for most of them. Of course, by "homes" I mean prison cells.

Then there's the tear gassing, and beatings by the police, during their "compassionate removal". These are conveniently glossed over, in favour of reporting about the odd youth who throws a rock. I've just watched a video of a few officers beating a pregnant woman with a baton.
Then people wonder why these people are trying to get to the UK - would you seek asylum in a country where you get treated this way?
25
 deepsoup 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Then people wonder why these people are trying to get to the UK

More media farage* I believe - the majority of them are not.

(* - the juice from the bottom of a wheelie bin, used in this case as a disparaging term to suggest a kind of runny urban bullshit.)
1
 summo 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Can you be evicted from a place you are trying to escape from?
1
 Mike Stretford 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
> Then there's the tear gassing, and beatings by the police, during their "compassionate removal". These are conveniently glossed over, in favour of reporting about the odd youth who throws a rock. I've just watched a video of a few officers beating a pregnant woman with a baton.

That's awful, can you post a link to the video?

I have got to say, the video on the Guardian site shows more than the 'odd youth', it looks like a riot and it's impossible to tell who initiated the violence.

I've been following this too.... I have to say groups like Care4Calais have a lot to answer for. Most deaths have been have occurred while people have been trying to board lorries or trains. There is no safe way for them to cross, so maintaining a camp there is morally wrong. There are other places to go, Sweden and Germany are better options, and France has been bussing people who decide to claim asylum there away from the camps.

Concerned British people should focus their efforts on holding the French authorities to account, they have a duty to take unaccompanied children into protective custody. If it was a relative of mine I would rather that happen then they tried to jump on a train. Maintaining a camp there will not change the political climate in the UK, well, not to the benefit of refugees.
Post edited at 16:34
In reply to deepsoup:

> More media farage* I believe - the majority of them are not.

What other reason is there for living about in an 'unofficial' camp next to the Channel Tunnel rather than registering in France apart from trying to get to the UK?
OP SenzuBean 01 Mar 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> That's awful, can you post a link to the video?

> I have got to say, the video on the Guardian site shows more than the 'odd youth', it looks like a riot and it's impossible to tell who initiated the violence.

> I've been following this too.... I have to say groups like Care4Calais have a lot to answer for. Most deaths have been have occurred while people have been trying to board lorries or trains. There is no safe way for them to cross, so maintaining a camp there is morally wrong. There are other places to go, Sweden and Germany are better options, and France has been bussing people who decide to claim asylum there away from the camps.

> Concerned British people should focus their efforts on holding the French authorities to account, they have a duty to take unaccompanied children into protective custody. If it was a relative of mine I would rather that happen then they tried to jump on a train. Maintaining a camp there will not change the political climate in the UK, well, not to the benefit of refugees.

I don't have a link to the video - it's one of those bloody embedded facebook videos that are hard to link to. But it's in the main the facebook group that volunteers use to organize efforts. I'll see if it's separately on youtube.

I do agree that it's not ideal to have the camp there. But as I see it - the refugees were already there, scattered about Calais, and living in dreadful conditions (the camp itself is on a former landfill, and the groundwater is highly contaminated there). The volunteers have simply housed them, fed them, and provided them with things to do, which keeps them away from the French people and from scavenging.
6
 Chris Harris 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> These refugees have survived in many cases multiple tragedies, and now are enduring yet another one.

France isn't all that bad.

2
OP SenzuBean 01 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> Can you be evicted from a place you are trying to escape from?

The refugees are using the camp as their homes for now (in many cases they've stayed for many months to years). They have now been prevented by the police from collecting their belongings (which were destroyed along with the volunteer'built homes). They're not escaping from France, they're escaping _to_ safety.
9
 summo 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> The refugees are using the camp as their homes for now (in many cases they've stayed for many months to years). They have now been prevented by the police from collecting their belongings (which were destroyed along with the volunteer'built homes). They're not escaping from France, they're escaping _to_ safety.

I don't agree with the gasing etc.. but the demolition of their 'housing' was well known? They've left the communal buildings and given them better huts to actually live in?
OP SenzuBean 01 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> I don't agree with the gasing etc.. but the demolition of their 'housing' was well known? They've left the communal buildings and given them better huts to actually live in?

They've evicted them in winter! From an ex-landfill! They've had less than two weeks notice (and many of the refugees were purposefully directed to the camp last year by the French authorities - as they would then be off farmer's fields), and as mentioned - they have nowhere near enough places for them.
Lots of the communal buildings have been burned to the ground (the welcome caravan, for example). Could be the French police, or it could be the refugees themselves - we don't know. But either way, it's as a result of this forceful eviction. Bear in mind there have been monthly tear gas attacks in the camp - so they've been living in fear this whole time. Bear in mind they're just trying to find safety with their families.

The better huts are basically imaginary. There are about 500 communal beds in shipping containers, where they need to be fingerprinted to enter/exit (i.e. that alone would defeat their asylum application - so they'll be stuck in France. I recall they also needed to wear an armband to show they're refugees when on the streets (ding ding ding - that should ring alarm bells!), and the other few hundred are in non-windproof "tents" which many are currently full of water.
13
 summo 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

You are deluded.

Less than 2 weeks notice? It's not like they need two weeks notice to book a pickfords truck. Most leave the jungle every night hoping to never return anyway.

I'd worry more for those starving to death in Syria, than those in France with food, accommodation, religious buildings, theatres, shops etc..

AND the right to claim asylum in France and NOT have to be in the jungle camp at all.
6
 Indy 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Oh sod off..... There is a perfectly good asylum system in place. These economic migrants are living in squalor because they choose to live in squalor.
7
 Indy 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> where they need to be fingerprinted to enter/exit (i.e. that alone would defeat their asylum application - so they'll be stuck in France.

Please will you confirm that you understand the difference between 'economic migrant' and 'refugee'

You can just imagine after the second world war a starving refugee being offered a bowl of soup coming out with " No, I think you'll find I ordered the herb crusted cod with crushed potatoes and side salad of mixed leaves" :|
9
 Big Ger 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

They are no longer refugees if they are in France. They are migrants.
1
In reply to Chris Harris:

> France isn't all that bad.

The country is lovely, its just the people....

<snigger>
5
 Slarti B 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
> ...I've just watched a video of a few officers beating a pregnant woman with a baton.

Was it this video http://tinyurl.com/z5qjt57 ? If so, I don't think your description is accurate.

Scenario is 2 people on roof 2.5m high shed defending their patch in a confrontational way. Policemen climbing up the ladder one at a time to confront them.

@22secs Police officer 1 grabs man and trips him . Man struggles and looks like he is hit once by a policemen 2 @24 secs. Women then hits policeman 2 who puts arm up defend himself and backs away @24-25 sec. In fact it looks like she has something in her hand.
@25-26 secs it looks like policemen 2 is defending himself and is possible he hits her once but not very clear.
@ 26 secs policeman 2 grabs womans arm and policeman 1 pulls her to ground.

Couple are then sat on by police 123.

Sad to watch but looks more like an attempt to subdue subdue them safely. Certainly not what is implied by "police beating a pregnant woman". In fact it looks like the Police were avoiding "beating" which is hardly surprising given the numbers of cameras around!
Post edited at 19:58
Jim C 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

I'm sure you are well meaning, but I agree with other posters, the people in these camps are inflicting any discomfort on themselves( and their children) .

They are entirely to blame therefore for their current situation, and should they follow the rule of law, register in France and they can have proper shelter food , heating etc. Whatever sympathy I had, is long gone. Time for tough love.

 Ridge 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> They've evicted them in winter! From an ex-landfill! They've had less than two weeks notice (and many of the refugees were purposefully directed to the camp last year by the French authorities - as they would then be off farmer's fields), and as mentioned - they have nowhere near enough places for them.

Spending winter under a pallet on a landfill isn't exactly sanitary. It,s right they should be moved to more suitable locations. Who the hell would let their kids live like that in an attempt to force their way into the UK?

> Lots of the communal buildings have been burned to the ground (the welcome caravan, for example). Could be the French police, or it could be the refugees themselves - we don't know. But either way, it's as a result of this forceful eviction. Bear in mind there have been monthly tear gas attacks in the camp - so they've been living in fear this whole time. Bear in mind they're just trying to find safety with their families.

They'd be safe if they claimed asylum in France or any of the countries they've transited through to live in a shit-igloo in Calais. What are these 'monthly tear gas attacks'? I've seen tear gas used on mobs attacking lorries, or are you saying the French Police are just firing at the camp for fun?

> The better huts are basically imaginary. There are about 500 communal beds in shipping containers, where they need to be fingerprinted to enter/exit (i.e. that alone would defeat their asylum application - so they'll be stuck in France. I recall they also needed to wear an armband to show they're refugees when on the streets (ding ding ding - that should ring alarm bells!), and the other few hundred are in non-windproof "tents" which many are currently full of water.

Those shipping containers look remarkably like Corimecs. I lived in one for nearly 8 months, including through a winter where it was -25 for several weeks. They're insulated, have light, heat and power and are a damn sight better than the Jungle. So they need to control who gets in, it's safer for the residents and stops the accomodation from being trashed. Also what 'asylum applications'? They're deliberately not applying in the hope of entering the UK illegally.

The Jungle needs clearing for the benefit of all concerned, including the migrants.
 winhill 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

As bulldozers continue to clear part of the makeshift Calais camp known as the Jungle, some migrants continue to resist the move into container accommodation.

Feet up and cigarette in hand, Rahim is lying on a wooden crate that serves as a bed, listening to Shakira on his laptop.
The thin plywood and plastic walls of his makeshift hut offer little protection against the cold, damp winter air, and he's wrapped in a blanket to keep warm.
Rahim is from Kabul and arrived in France six months ago in search of a better life.
A handsome and self-assured young man in his late 20s, dressed in a smart black shalwar kameez, he describes how he set up shop in the Afghan section of the infamous Calais jungle camp, opening a cafe offering cheap food and shelter for new arrivals.

The cafe which Rahim calls his "hotel" may be no more than a rickety shack, but business is booming.
Overhead, the walls are lined with wooden shelves full of jars of Indian spices and cans of beans and peas.
'I've got 20 men working for me here, and I pay them 25 euros a day," Rahim tells the BBC.
He even earns enough to send money back home.

Rahim's story is a clear illustration of the complex and often perplexing realities of life in the Calais camp.
He openly admits that his life wasn't in danger in Kabul.
"Thank God we were always well off," he says with a smile, "I never worked a day in my life."

But Rahim, and many young single Afghan men like him in the camp are all in search of something life back home could never offer - the opportunity to make something of themselves.
They do not think the world owes them a living. But they definitely think the world owes them the chance to try and live their dream.

"I'm not going anywhere," says Rahim. "It's either Britain or right here! How am I supposed to earn a living in the new camp?"

There have been regular night-time confrontations between the young Afghans and French police.
Rahim and his friends show us footage on their mobile phones of riot police firing tear gas at crowds of young men hurling stones back at them.

The enticing smell of the food mixes with the oppressive smell of sewage that hangs permanently over the camp.
Later there's another smell - hashish, which many young men smoke here to help them get through the long days and even longer nights waiting for their chance to move on.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35385232
1
 wintertree 01 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Then people wonder why these people are trying to get to the UK - would you seek asylum in a country where you get treated this way?

Consider a bunch of people who decided to set up an illegal camp in the UK rather than engage with local and national systems that exist for their support, and who flagrantly flout the law by doing so.

Guess what - they'll be treated much like the people in the migrant camp. That is served with eviction notices, with these being enforced with force if necessary.

These people in Calais are making a choice, and do so knowingly, and suffer the consequences of their choice. I honestly wouldn't care except some people are making the choice on behalf of children who then suffer by living in the camp, and suffer by getting caught up in the violence of eviction in the face of resistance. That they have so little regard for their children speaks volumes.
Post edited at 23:02
1
 aln 01 Mar 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Consider a bunch of people who decided to set up an illegal camp in the UK.

Sounds a lot like our local gypsies.

That they have so little regard for their children speaks volumes.

Similar

1
 John Ww 02 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Are you getting the hang of it yet? This is not a camp full of refugees or asylum seekers - they are economic migrants seeking illegal entry into a rich county because they don't fancy the equally rich country they're already in.

JW
3
 Mike Stretford 02 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

It does seem that France is making progress, dispersing people away from Calais.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-uk-activists-d...

There's been some poor reporting from the Guardian on this, unfairly critical of France. Totally agree with her comments about No Borders.
OP SenzuBean 03 Mar 2016
In reply to John Ww:

> Are you getting the hang of it yet? This is not a camp full of refugees or asylum seekers - they are economic migrants seeking illegal entry into a rich county because they don't fancy the equally rich country they're already in.

> JW

It would be lovely if it were so simple - but you're tarring them all with the brush of the few that are there for monetary reasons. The vast majority are there because they have fled, they know English already (and don't want to be forced to learn a new language - would you?) and/or have family in England. The fact you think you "get it" despite only seeing what's on TV is unfortunate - maybe if you actually were involved with the camp you'd be less ignorant.

You'd think people would learn not to take what's seen on TV at face value. It's ever so blindingly obvious when it's your area of expertise on TV (for example we often see bollocks stories about climbing / the outdoors) - we can spot them from a mile off. But this same doubt doesn't transfer over to other things we don't know as much about.
12
 krikoman 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Correct, there was a radio program from the Macedonian / Greek, contrary to what we've been told in the press and on the news that these migrants are all young men who should be fighting for their country. the woman on the ground was saying that the crowd, who had just had stun-grenades and tears gas fired at them, was made up of mainly women and children.

The French aren't processing them, because they'll then have to offer asylum, which is why they are there i the first place.

The question the immigrant hates need to ask themselves is, "what would you do in their situation?" Do you stay in a country where all sides,including the western cavalry, are busy trying to kill you, or would you try and get you family away from it all.

No body puts there children in an overloaded boat, unless they are desperate and have no other option.
3
 Slarti B 03 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Correct, there was a radio program from the Macedonian / Greek, contrary to what we've been told in the press and on the news that these migrants are all young men who should be fighting for their country. the woman on the ground was saying that the crowd, who had just had stun-grenades and tears gas fired at them, was made up of mainly women and children.

From figures I have seen about over 80% of inhabitants of Calais jungle are single male adults.
1
 wintertree 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> majority are there because they have fled, they know English already (and don't want to be forced to learn a new language)

I missed the bit where anyone is forced to learn anything. Hint: they're not.

Compared to living in current Syria learning a smattering of pigeon French would seem to be the least I could do to get out. Plenty of Arabic speakers in France, several million.

Sounds like you're scraping the barrel to justify these people's actions. Work in the UK media?
Post edited at 09:41
6
 wintertree 03 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The question the immigrant hates need to ask themselves is, "what would you do in their situation?" Do you stay in a country where all sides,including the western cavalry, are busy trying to kill you, or would you try and get you family away from it all.

If France is that bad, I don't think I'd have gone there in the first place. Plenty of other EU countries between Syria and France.

Also pretty sure the cavalry aren't trying to kill the unarmed migrants in France. You can tell, because they're not dead.
3
abseil 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> ....The vast majority are there because.... they know English already... and/or have family in England....

Are you sure about that - where did you get that information from - can you quote some figures / statistics? Thank you. I'm asking because I work with arrivees (90% of whom have entered via Calais) one day a week, and that is absolutely not the case with them.
Post edited at 09:52
 JoshOvki 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> The vast majority are there because they have fled, they know English already (and don't want to be forced to learn a new language - would you?)

If I had fled, I would learn how to ride on a unicycle backwards while juggling knives if I thought it was going to keep me safe. After all they have been through, you would have thought they would be willing to learn a new language to stay safe...
1
 Mike Stretford 03 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The French aren't processing them, because they'll then have to offer asylum, which is why they are there i the first place.

Yes they are, although British 'activists' are getting in the way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-uk-activists-d...
 krikoman 03 Mar 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Yes they are, although British 'activists' are getting in the way.


And how desperate do people have to be to do this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-evictions-refu...

Probably just some attention seeking economic migrant though eh?
7
 Simon4 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> The vast majority are there because they have fled, they know English already (and don't want to be forced to learn a new language - would you?) and/or have family in England.

That is exactly the sort of chain migration that is completely unsustainable and rejected by the vast majority of this country. It also has no legal standing under existing asylum laws, which are themselves absurdly anachronistic, unworkable and need to be very drastically curtailed.

Speaking English, which a huge proportion of the globe do to a greater or lesser extent (I have seen a Russian pass a Korean at 5000m on a 50 degree ice-slope in the middle of Central Asia, they both immediately assumed that the other could speak at least some words of English, never having met before), is not even remotely close to a valid reason to be admitted to the UK, the USA or any other English-language country, even under present rules. Nor is having relatives, individuals need to be assessed individually or the chain-migration would indeed be endless and overwhelming.

 Mike Stretford 03 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And how desperate do people have to be to do this?

> Probably just some attention seeking economic migrant though eh?

No, clearly somebody with mental health issues. I'm not saying that as insult but as the only possible explanation. The French are offering these people shelter in a civilised environment, albeit away from Calais (as stated in the article I linked to). To turn that down in favour of squalid condition, the prospect of getting injured jumping on a lorry, and slitting wrist, all while pregnant, are the actions of someone who needs help (an intervention). She will get the same treatment she would get here, an assessment by social services and health care professionals.
Post edited at 11:12
 muppetfilter 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

I dont take TV at face value, i spent a fair bit of time working in Nigeria, Angola, Cameroon, Gabon and have to say when you see the way people behave you realise you cant expect them to behave like westerners..... i think you need a weeks trip to Lagos. Any illusion of these people as the victims you think them to be will be stripped from you faster than your wallet and shoes !!!
2
 WaterMonkey 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

So which country, bordering France is currently at war?
Refugees should seek asylum in the first country they get to. And if they really were fleeing for their lives they'd be happy to do just that.
Nope, these are economic migrants. I have zero sympathy for them, maybe you should do some research into their effect on Calais as a town and how the Calaisians are too scared to go out at night due to the very real threat of violence and rape.
KevinD 03 Mar 2016
In reply to Steve-J-E:

> So which country, bordering France is currently at war?

couple more weeks of EU referendum discussion and I reckon that the UK may count.

1
Jim C 03 Mar 2016
In reply to abseil:
> ....The vast majority are there because.... they know English already... and/or have family in England....

Thank goodness for someone in a position to refute such assertions.
 summo 03 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

They didn't actually try to do it, rather symbolise it, also none of the news reporters knew if they were a migrant, or the rent a mob from the UK stirring up violence.
 John Ww 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Could I ask you one question? As you seem to disregard the opinions of those who disagree with you, arguing that we (they) are being somehow duped by what we see on TV or read in newspapers, could you tell us what exactly is your opinion based on? What direct, specific, first-hand, personal experience do you have of the situation in Calais?

Cheers, JW

OP SenzuBean 03 Mar 2016
In reply to John Ww:

> Could I ask you one question? As you seem to disregard the opinions of those who disagree with you, arguing that we (they) are being somehow duped by what we see on TV or read in newspapers, could you tell us what exactly is your opinion based on? What direct, specific, first-hand, personal experience do you have of the situation in Calais?

> Cheers, JW

I'm involved with the volunteering effort from the UK, and have close friends who have worked at the camp.

Interestingly here's a more accurate report of what's been happening:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/03/france-razing-calais-j...

Lastly we also seem to be forgetting that these refugees are our problem. We destabilized their region (funding militia to overthrow unsympathetic governments, bombing runs, etc). We are morally obligated to help the innocent people that we've ruined the lives of. We can't just create warzones and expect them to solve it themselves, nor heft the burden onto Turkey because they're the closest - not unless we're a pack of c(*&ts that is.
4
OP SenzuBean 03 Mar 2016
In reply to abseil:

> Are you sure about that - where did you get that information from - can you quote some figures / statistics? Thank you. I'm asking because I work with arrivees (90% of whom have entered via Calais) one day a week, and that is absolutely not the case with them.

Care4Calais volunteers have said as much (among other charities). I suspect many of the people that make it over here with family go directly to their family, rather than arrival centres. But that's my speculation.
Certainly there has been no official census of the camp (the French authorities estimated they'd only be displacing 1000 people, but the charity workers know it is about 3500 - from their inofficial census, and from the amount of meals being given out. This was ignored in court).
2
OP SenzuBean 03 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> That is exactly the sort of chain migration that is completely unsustainable and rejected by the vast majority of this country. It also has no legal standing under existing asylum laws, which are themselves absurdly anachronistic, unworkable and need to be very drastically curtailed.

> Speaking English, which a huge proportion of the globe do to a greater or lesser extent (I have seen a Russian pass a Korean at 5000m on a 50 degree ice-slope in the middle of Central Asia, they both immediately assumed that the other could speak at least some words of English, never having met before), is not even remotely close to a valid reason to be admitted to the UK, the USA or any other English-language country, even under present rules. Nor is having relatives, individuals need to be assessed individually or the chain-migration would indeed be endless and overwhelming.

Turkey has accepted a lot more refugees than we have - WAY more. We have no position to reject them when we consider our involvement with the warzone in Syria (us = US and allies).
Secondly, Japan has twice as many people in an area the same size as the UK (60 million more people). And we're quibbling over <5000 refugees?

Lastly deferring to the "rules" is not a proper argument. The rules were you could have a slave once - should we all have followed those rules until the end of time? If rules are not humane - then they should be disregarded.
4
 muppetfilter 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
So where are you aiming to live ? Your profile states you intend to leave the UK and settle in New Zealand... this kind of makes you a Hypocrite.
Post edited at 14:08
1
 MG 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Turkey has accepted a lot more refugees than we have - WAY more. We have no position to reject them when we consider our involvement with the warzone in Syria (us = US and allies).

You don't think various Islamic civil wars (not to mention Russian input) might be the issue in Syria? Our minimal involvement has been bombing ISIS, which seems to have had some benefit in areas such as those where the Kurds now have control.
Lusk 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> And we're quibbling over <5000 refugees?

OK, let them in, then the next 5000, then next 5000, then the next 5000, spot the theme here!
Why not just give everyone who rolls up at Calais a free ferry ticket?
These people are trying to enter the UK illegally, all you're doing with your do-gooding, is perpetuating their misery in Calais, but I'm sure you get that warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
1
 Ridge 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> We have no position to reject them when we consider our involvement with the warzone in Syria (us = US and allies).

We've been blamed for not bombing Syria, then for bombing Syria. We're certainly not bombing Afghanistan at present, or Morroco or other African countries where the majority of Jungle residents seem to hail from.

> Lastly deferring to the "rules" is not a proper argument.

Neither is your own personal opinion.

 Roadrunner5 03 Mar 2016
In reply to Lusk:
Codswallop.

We let asylum seekers in. We should take more, all European countries should.

So what if they want to come illegally? What do we do? Sit there saying sorry whilst they die?

Or process them and allow to settle or be returned.

These are problems that need dealing with at the EU level. Who pays, who takes..

Pretending that by not helping that the thousands who want to come to the UK will suddenly stop and go home is preposterous.


10
 Slarti B 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Turkey has accepted a lot more refugees than we have - WAY more. We have no position to reject them when we consider our involvement with the warzone in Syria (us = US and allies).
Turkey is next to Syria and is logical place for refugees to flee to. However, my guess is that Turkey would place fairly strict limits on them and would not expect them to settle there permanently. I think UK and other countries should be helping Turkey, as well as Jordan and Lebanon who also have refugees but not as strong economically as Turkey, to cope with this influx with economic and logistical aid.
Other have commented on the UK's recent and very limited involvement in Syria. Do you think that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia should be opening their borders to refugees; they have much closer involvement with conflict

> Secondly, Japan has twice as many people in an area the same size as the UK (60 million more people). And we're quibbling over <5000 refugees?
AS Germany has shown, if you encourage people to come more will follow. Is it moral to encourage people to make these long dangerous journeys when they may end up in a camp like Calais?
Vast majority of Calais camp inhabitants are single males and likely to then bring in wider family, dependants etc ( I heard the phrase "anchor migrants" in relation to this. So the 5000 can soon increase!

btw What is population density of New Zealand


 Roadrunner5 03 Mar 2016
In reply to Slarti B:
Do you know how anchor migrants work? It's all online..
abseil 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Care4Calais volunteers have said as much (among other charities)....

Thanks very much for your reply.
Pan Ron 03 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
While it comforts me that people such as yourself take such a keen and supportive interest in these migrants/refugees, the core issue seems to be the question of just how many are actually refugees, rather than migrants.

Crushing poverty is the norm in Africa, and India. Together they count for 2 billion people. If crushing poverty is the criteria for opening borders then aren't we potentially opening our doors to billions of people? Is that a good idea? What about those already in the queue, filling out the paperwork, doing the necessary to follow the rules required to come here? Do these economic migrants jump the queue simply because they are mixed in with genuine refugees? Does it simply become a case of "if you are poor, and if you can get here, come on in"?

It astounds me that genuine refugees feel the need to come all the way to England, picking and choosing where they get to live. As a migrant myself, I would have loved to have immigrated to a number of countries around Europe. Unfortunately, the UK was my only option so I stuck with it. I didn't demand access to Sweden, Denmark or Switzerland, any of which I would much rather have lived in. What about the refugees dealing with live in Turkey? They strike me as far more likely to return to Syria when the war is over. I doubt very much that many, once settled here, will decide to return to Syria to help put the country back together at the end of it.

This isn't WWII, where the UK was one of the few remaining places of safety for Poles, Jews, Gypsies and so on. An African or a Syrian has a wealth of bordering countries in which to seek asylum. Life might not be comfortable, or even pleasant, but it is safe - and that is all Asylum is for.
Post edited at 23:17
1
 Simon4 04 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

As it happens, I recently passed through that border, only a few days ago.

I, like every UK and French citizen, indeed every citizen of any country, was required to show my passport - twice in a very short distance, once at the French checkpoint, once at the British. My luggage was X-rayed (not that they noticed the metal flask, or Swiss army knife, but that is another matter). I, like everybody else there, was quiet and polite to the officials - it was all conducted under French law. Neither I nor anybody else made aggressive demands, nor threw anything at the security or French police.

The obvious characteristic of these people is their total contempt for law - French law in this case, seeing as this was France. All they respond to is their own sense of entitlement and belief that they can have whatever they want if they are aggressive enough.

Well the French can be annoying, but it is a state governed by law. France remains our close neighbour, our sister democracy, that will remain the case inside or outside the EU. Everything the French police did, everything the prefect did, was allowed by French law, in fact a French court had laid down strict conditions for this action. France is a state governed by law, as the UK is.

These people are totally lawless, as their nightly attacks on British and other lorry drivers and their daily attacks on the good burgers of Calais show. Why do you think that if we were so foolish as to allow them into Britain they would suddenly obey British law when they are so contemptuous of French law?

So the result of giving them what they want would be lawless anarchy, quite apart from the fact that allowing this 5000 into Britain would inspire another 50,000 to migrate to Calais, causing mayhem in both Britain and France. The French police have done both countries an enormous favour in partly resolving this situation, even if it was far too long delayed. We in Britain should support them and thank them, just as our sympathy should be for the citizens of Calais, a grubby, unlovely but safe and stable town till it was invaded by this middle Eastern mob, also it should be with British and other lorry drivers trying to carry on a poorly paid and not very rewarding but very necessary job.

Your sympathy for the violent chancers who have no respect for the countries that they seek to obtain all manner of goodies from is naive in the extreme and entirely misplaced. Our advanced, law-abiding, settled societies did not come about by accident and will not continue to exist without being defended, by legally sanctioned and regulated force if necessary. And yes, our ordered society and that of our close allies, is more important than the rampant desires for stuff that they can snatch from third world chancers.
 Ridge 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Codswallop.

> We let asylum seekers in. We should take more, all European countries should.

I generally agree, but they need to be processed and have a robust system in place for the rapid deportation of criminals and economic migrants.

> So what if they want to come illegally? What do we do? Sit there saying sorry whilst they die?

No one's dying in Calais. We are funding camps close to Syria, and we, (and the rest of the world), should be ploughing more money in. We need to create safe zones with food and medical attention, and prioritise the most vulnerable for asylum. Fit and violent young men should be bottom of the list, not let in first as would be the case with Calais.

> Or process them and allow to settle or be returned.

See above.

> These are problems that need dealing with at the EU level. Who pays, who takes..

It needs sorting at a world level, not just EU.

> Pretending that by not helping that the thousands who want to come to the UK will suddenly stop and go home is preposterous.

Letting the thousands in will encourage tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands when word gets out the UK have opened the borders.

 Ridge 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Oh, and KSA might like to take a few:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia

The infrastructure seems to be in place already.
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

This is a sad thread, it's all about "them" and "they" yet nobody seems to be able to say what they would do if you were in their situation.

It's all very well saying they should fight, not put their children through this sort of torture, they are only here for econnominc reasons, but what would you do?

If you've been told that we can get you to England, there you'll be safe and well looked after, the weather is lovely and the streets paved with gold. You then decide to pay someone a lot of money to make that happen, probably a number of times, you put yourself, wife and kids into a situation were you might have come close to losing one or all of them. You've spent all your money and travelled over 4,000 km and you find you way blocked.

What would you do?

Do you turn around and go back?

If so go back to what?

If you have the chance to leave Syria do you take it, or do you decide to stay and hope for the best?

Someone above said they had complete disregard for their children, would you have said the same about the Jewish families who put their kids on transport to get them out of Germany, while they stayed behind?

If you think the TV reporting isn't biased then you need to open you eyes and see what you're being fed. The BBC was in Greece the other day showing the people on the Macedonian border. The reporter stated that the majority he spoke to were from Syria, men women and children; so far so good. Cut away to an interview with four Moroccans in a cafe, obviously economic migrants. This interview lasted a couple of minutes, much longer than the report of the situation there, where previously he'd just stated the majority were fleeing the war in Syria. So why did they feel the need to report the story of these 4 blokes and not the other 1,000 or so people escaping god know what?

Instead of a report about the 1,000 people and what they had endured, and were still enduring, it ended upi about 4 people and their story, which is more important.

Again I have to ask the question, your in a war zone where you and you family feel it's quite likely you might die. Someone offers you the chance to leave, telling you there's a land of milk and honey waiting for you. You pay these people a massive amount of money, maybe all you own. After months of hardship and danger, you all somehow manage to survive, and you end up in Calais, with nothing. What do you do now?

A lot of people on here, either have no imagination, no empathy, or simply do care about other people suffering.
14
 Sir Chasm 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Perhaps some people don't understand what's stopping them claiming asylum in France.
 MG 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> If you've been told that we can get you to England, there you'll be safe and well looked after, the weather is lovely and the streets paved with gold.

If you believed all that you are a complete fool.

> What would you do?

Probably hang out in Calais for while, realize things aren't happening and, for example, claim asylum in France. Or if I was actually not eligible, head back the way I came, lessons learnt.

The point you and others seem to be missing is that while all this misery is a terrible thing, simply accepting unlimited numbers of migrants isn't a solution. If we accept 5000 from Calais because they are making most noise, next week there will be another 5000 and so on and so on. There has to be some process and rules, otherwise it becomes a free for all, as Germany is learning.
In reply to krikoman:
"What would you do?"

So is it safe to assume that if Britain was in a violent civil war, you would be the first to run off with your family, get to France (safe)... but not stop, you would keep going on a dangerous journey across numerous countries, paying people smugglers, getting in dangerous boats, and back of artics...with your young children until you got to your dream land of milk and honey. Then refuse to move until they let you in?
Post edited at 09:39
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> If you believed all that you are a complete fool.

Don't desperate people believe in all sorts of foolish things?

Getting on an overloaded boat and believing you going to be OK might be a little foolish too, but it hasn't stopped people doing it has it?

Is it any more foolish than staying in Syria and thinking you or your family won't get killed?

A lot of people here don't seem to be able to equate this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371675/Bombed-houses-rubble-far-ey... with possibly wanting to live somewhere else.

It blows my mind that people can't seem to see why you might want to live somewhere else.
8
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "What would you do?"

> So is it safe to assume that if Britain was in a violent civil war, you would be the first to run off with your family, get to France (safe)... but not stop, you would keep going on a dangerous journey across numerous countries, paying people smugglers, getting in dangerous boats, and back of artics...with your young children until you got to your dream land of milk and honey. Then refuse to move until they let you in?

I'd go to where I thought we might have the best chance of having a safe and peaceful life, if that happened to be Outer Mongolia then I'd try and get there. Once your there your pretty f*cked if you spent everything you have to get there and it's not what you thought, but would I go back, of course not. What do you go back too FFS!

What do you propose you do with your young children, leave them there while you try and find somewhere safe?
Isn't that one of the other arguments we see here, "they're all young men, where's the women and children. They must be terrorists!!"
5
 timjones 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It blows my mind that people can't seem to see why you might want to live somewhere else.

It blows my mind that people can't comprehend the difference between refugees escaping from danger and migrants seeking to travel onwards to other countries.

1
 Mike Stretford 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It blows my mind that people can't seem to see why you might want to live somewhere else.

That's a straw man, MG did not suggest the best thing is to return to a warzone, he suggested they claim asylum in France. For a family stuck in Calais that is by far the best thing to do..... why can't you accept that?

I happen think the UK should take in more refugees, but through the UN. The presence of the camp at Calais is counter-productive to that, it is hardening British attitudes towards refugees. Much worse it is endangering the lives of the people who end up there. The French have said they will house all who will leave the camp, campaigners should focus their efforts on ensuring the French do do that.
 Lord_ash2000 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Completely agree, if I was at risk of being killed in Britain, I'd get out and go to the first safe country I could (probably France) and sign up as a refugee and be thankful for their hospitality. I barely speak a word of French but I think a bit of faff communicating early on far out ways risking my life and that of my family again to trek halfway across Europe because I think I might get higher benefits or better job satisfaction in a different country.

I think the illegal (key word here) immigrants in France should be made to apply for asylum or arrested on sight and deported to the Syrian boarder. Once they are registered they can then be distributed across the effected counties more equally.
In reply to krikoman:

"I'd go to where I thought we might have the best chance of having a safe and peaceful life, if that happened to be Outer Mongolia then I'd try and get there. Once your there your pretty f*cked if you spent everything you have to get there and it's not what you thought, but would I go back, of course not. What do you go back too FFS!"

Fair enough. But what would you do if Outer Mongolia refused you asylum because you had crossed numerous safe countries where you could have claimed asylum but refused to? to the point where you are now camping in a impoverished camp on the border, refusing any help from the Kazakhstan border police who offer you housing and asylum, because in your mind it's Outer Mongolia or bust.? What would you do now?

Do you see how sympathy can drop off a cliff when it's put like this?
 MG 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'd go to where I thought we might have the best chance of having a safe and peaceful life, if that happened to be Outer Mongolia then I'd try and get there. Once your there your pretty f*cked if you spent everything you have to get there and it's not what you thought, but would I go back, of course not. What do you go back too FFS!

So you are basically saying these people in Calais have all bet their livlihoods basis of hearsay about the UK streets being paved with gold and now in a pickle because that isn't how things are. I think is largely nonsense, but even if its true, why should we accommodate thousands of reckless gamblers, rather than say supporting millions who are genuinely needing asylum across the middle east with money, aid etc, as we are doing.
Bogwalloper 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

>

> Fair enough. But what would you do if Outer Mongolia refused you asylum because you had crossed numerous safe countries where you could have claimed asylum but refused to? to the point where you are now camping in a impoverished camp on the border, refusing any help from the Kazakhstan border police who offer you housing and asylum, because in your mind it's Outer Mongolia or bust.? What would you do now?

>

He'd start throwing stones at the cops.

wally

1
 John Ww 04 Mar 2016

> A lot of people here don't seem to be able to equate this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371675/Bombed-houses-rubble-far-ey... with possibly wanting to live somewhere else.

> It blows my mind that people can't seem to see why you might want to live somewhere else.

Agree entirely - but a lot of people can also work out that to get from Syria to England, you have to go through, round or via some or all of the following EU countries:-

Turkey
Greece
Bulgaria
Albania
Macedonia
Serbia
Montenegro
Bosnia / Herzegovina
Croatia
Slovenia
Austria
Czech Republic
Italy
Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
France

Now while my geopolitical knowledge may only be based on what I see and read in the media, as far as I know, not one of the above is currently at war, and all are able to offer asylum to genuine refugees from war-torn countries.

However, instead of claiming asylum in any of the above countries, they appear to be hell-bent on coming to Britain, and seem determined to prefer living in illegal squalor rather than an official facility provided by the French authorities. Not only that, they then decide to get involved in violent confrontations with the very authorities who have offered their help. Perhaps the ultimate example of "biting the hand that feeds you"?

Are you still surprised that people aren't welcoming them with open arms?

JW

 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to John Ww:

These "they" that you are talking about how many are in Turkey, or Lebanon, or Greece, or Iceland for that matter?

You seem to be agreeing that they have a need and that they should be out of Syria, yet you also don't seem to want to help or suggest that they are someone else's problem. sort of, "yes, it's terrible, but would you mind f*cking off somewhere else?"

Why do you think they belong somewhere else or that some other country should be doing it? Don't you think other countries are doing enough? Do you think we should do f*ckall because really they should be somewhere else?

Iceland has pledged to take 75 refugees that's 0.02% of their population, if we did the same we'd be taking 1,400,000 in comparison to the 50,000 over 5 years that David's promised.

Why does it suit you to let everyone else shoulder some of the burden but not us?
10
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think the illegal (key word here) immigrants in France should be made to apply for asylum or arrested on sight and deported to the Syrian boarder.

You'd send them back to this would you? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371675/Bombed-houses-rubble-far-ey...
5
 John Ww 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Thanks for your response - which fails entirely to address the points I made.

JW
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to John Ww:

> Thanks for your response - which fails entirely to address the points I made.

> JW

Try this http://newirin.irinnews.org/non-merci-why-refugees-avoid-france/
5
Lusk 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Iceland has pledged to take 75 refugees that's 0.02% of their population, if we did the same we'd be taking 1,400,000

I'd get your calculator serviced if I was you!
Bogwalloper 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> I'd get your calculator serviced if I was you!

More like 13,000.

Wally
 Roadrunner5 04 Mar 2016
In reply to timjones:

> It blows my mind that people can't comprehend the difference between refugees escaping from danger and migrants seeking to travel onwards to other countries.

That behavior is nothing new.

Refugees rarely flee to the next country as they fear what drove them so much so they go many countries over. Turkey the Balkan states and others may be safe but they won't take that risk.
3
 Lord_ash2000 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I wouldn't need to because faced with that I think 100% of people would be quite happy to stay in which ever EU country they are told to. If they still refuse to play by our rules then it's their choice.
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> That behavior is nothing new.

> Refugees rarely flee to the next country as they fear what drove them so much so they go many countries over. Turkey the Balkan states and others may be safe but they won't take that risk.

Which makes perfect sense in the real world. If your going to stake all you have on a new life, why wouldn't you aim for the place you think (rightly or wrongly) where you expect to be safest and have the best chances for you and your family.

You only have to look at Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan to see how well things have worked out there. Plus you have the threat of ISIS all over the middle east, why would you possibly move to either of those countries if you were contemplating wholesale up-rooting?
2
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> I'd get your calculator serviced if I was you!

You're right, I sent it in for a 40,000 mile service and oil change. Well spotted.

Though while we're talking of Iceland, "More than 11,000 families in Iceland have offered to open their homes to Syrian refugees in a bid to raise the government's cap"

That quite a large proportion of their population, willing to help.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/more-than-11000-icelanders-o...
2
 Sir Chasm 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

And that's very good of them. What's it got to do with people in Calais refusing to apply for asylum in France?
 thomasadixon 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Refugees rarely flee to the next country as they fear what drove them so much so they go many countries over. Turkey the Balkan states and others may be safe but they won't take that risk.

How do you square this assertion with the fact that the vast majority of Syrian refugees are still in Syria and its neighbouring countries?
 MG 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Refugees rarely flee to the next country as they fear what drove them so much so they go many countries over. Turkey the Balkan states and others may be safe but they won't take that risk.

On what basis do you say that? This list suggests refugees overwhelming stay as close as they can to their origins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population#By_co...
 Mike Stretford 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Some of that is just wrong, asylum seekers do get financial support

http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/france/reception-conditions/a...

while some of it doesn't really help the argument

'The hostel was very far away from downtown Paris'.....

There have been problems with overcrowding in reception centres but they are building more, with some money donated by the UK government.

Like I said before I think the UK should accept more refugees from the UN. It might be easier to persuade the UK public when the Calais situation is improved and things like this stop happening.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/it-was-petrifying-lorry-driver...
Post edited at 14:21
Pan Ron 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It's all very well saying they should fight, not put their children through this sort of torture, they are only here for econnominc reasons, but what would you do?

As I said, I always wanted to live in Scandinavia. I had to settle for England. Would I have been justified to say "sod Danish immigration law" and demand to be let in just because, to me, Danish streets are paved with gold? You go where you are allowed to go and fortunately there are perfectly adequate asylum options before reaching the UK. If you bend Asylum laws so that they instead grant an applicant rights to a country of their choice, or the country that they perceive to offer the greatest economic advantages, then it is no longer "asylum" and the system is being abused.

If these people are so industrious and are going to be such a benefit to British society (as is claimed), they seem remarkably violent, surprisingly willing to break the laws of each country they move through, and incredibly ignorant of the world if they assume they will be welcomed with open arms, employment and housing in the UK. It really wouldn't be that difficult to look up on the internet things like "Calais refugees" or "Mediterranean crossings" and realise exactly what you are in for on your voyage and at the far end.

Perhaps the do-gooders should consider the negative contribution they are making in encouraging this by painting a picture they asylum seekers should, and deserve, to come to the UK?

> If you have the chance to leave Syria do you take it, or do you decide to stay and hope for the best?

Yes, you take it. You go to the refugee camps in Turkey or Jordan where you patiently wait it out until the conflict ends, content in the knowledge you are no longer at risk of Assad or of ISIS. If you are particularly interested in forging a new life perhaps you move to the UAE or Saudi Arabia, just as many economic migrants from South Asia or Southeast Asia do - legally, working, often in grim conditions, but getting by.

> Someone above said they had complete disregard for their children, would you have said the same about the Jewish families who put their kids on transport to get them out of Germany, while they stayed behind?

As I said in my previous, this isn't anything like Nazi Germany. In the lead up to WWII, Britain and the US were the nearest safe havens, in the same situation Turkey or Jordan are today. If you fear Assad or you fear ISIS, you make the safest possible migration to the nearest safe-haven. That is not an apparently treacherous water crossing followed by illegally breaching the borders of half a dozen countries before you reach the UK.

> A lot of people on here, either have no imagination, no empathy, or simply do care about other people suffering.

I normally have a lot of empathy for people in this position. Millions had their livelihoods and families wiped out in the Asian tsunami. Huge numbers across the world toil in abject poverty, where being gifted a goat or granted micro-finance makes the difference between self-determination or starvation. Millions more migrate legally and endure all kinds of hardships in doing so to send remittances home. I have huge amount of sympathy for them.

I have a lot less sympathy for someone making demands, throwing their toys out of the pram, demanding what many others who are arguably far poorer, have no hope in obtaining. I am constantly putting myself in the shoes of Ahmed in Calais and thinking no fecking way would I be behaving like this if I were you!
 WaterMonkey 04 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
Watch this, pretty emotional speech from a Calaisian woman about her home town.
Now tell me you still feel sorry for the migrants and want to help them into this country...
youtube.com/watch?v=UKAQX74yRyc&
Post edited at 14:39
 Roadrunner5 04 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

They want to keep going.

Turkey also won't recognize Kurds, plus the history, they will keep going.

It may seem history but the Balkans were unsafe recently enough. My brother lives in Serbia and says tensions are still there.

Migrants from Vietnam didn't just go one country over they kept going fearing the domino effect.

Tbh I can't blame them not wanting to live in camps for years. I'd want to get somewhere safe where I can start life again properly not wait for years whilst my kids lose their education.
1
 Ridge 04 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

Could you stop posting things I can't help but agree with? It's really disconcerting
 timjones 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> That behavior is nothing new.

> Refugees rarely flee to the next country as they fear what drove them so much so they go many countries over. Turkey the Balkan states and others may be safe but they won't take that risk.

I'm sure it isn't. I was just disappointed that krikoman so blythely assumed that people don't have any empathy with the situation in Syria etc.
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:
> If these people are so industrious and are going to be such a benefit to British society (as is claimed), they seem remarkably violent, surprisingly willing to break the laws of each country they move through, and incredibly ignorant of the world if they assume they will be welcomed with open arms, employment and housing in the UK. It really wouldn't be that difficult to look up on the internet things like "Calais refugees" or "Mediterranean crossings" and realise exactly what you are in for on your voyage and at the far end.

How well do you think the internet is working here?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/video-clear-drone-footage-jobar-damascus-...

As for remarkably violent, no doubt some of them are violent, (it depends upon you view point I suppose), five years of war might have something to do with that. But once again do you know how you might react after putting everything you have on the line and then it appears someone is about to take it away?


I have to love you use of "Do gooders" as a pejorative term, why is it such a bad thing to try and help someone. When did caring become a bad thing, just because it doesn't fit with what you want?

If any one of these people were outside in your street most people would be appalled and try to get them help, because they're in France they can all fuck off!
Post edited at 16:08
10
 MG 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> I have to love you use of "Do gooders" as a pejorative term, why is it such a bad thing to try and help someone. When did caring become a bad thing, just because it doesn't fit with what you want?

Because when people, as you are here, respond to the most immediate and emotional problems in a very narrow sense, ignoring all the surrounding issues, making assumptions about the nature of the problem and ignoring all reasonable discussion, it is quite likely that they will make the situation worse, not better. Taking the people at Calais, many of whom, clearly aren't refugees, means they jump the queue simply by being more visible so other, more needy people elsewhere don't get help. It also means that rules about immigration and asylum start to break down as accepting some from Calais will just encourage more to turn up.
Post edited at 16:20
 Roadrunner5 04 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:
I really don't think that holds up for many.

They leave Syria and other places because of desperate conditions. You seem to be putting it down to the pull effect of the UK rather than the huge push affect of what they have experienced.
Post edited at 18:00
1
 wintertree 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> They leave Syria and other places because of desperate conditions. You seem to be putting it down to the pull effect of the UK rather than the huge push affect of what they have experienced.

Funny, that. Funnier still how you can write the above and not spot the inconsistency of your view.
Jim C 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I have to love you use of "Do gooders" as a pejorative term, why is it such a bad thing to try and help someone.

'Favours without thought' is what we are told at work can cause injury or death in industry.

We all at times want to just dive in and help people who are in difficult situations, but on reflection, that may not be the best thing for them , or for you. I have no doubt that people want to 'do good' , but that is not always what the result is.
 krikoman 04 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

It might be worth listening to the now show, Marcus Brigstocke at 25 minutes in.

He sums up what I've been trying to get over, a little better than me.
2
Pan Ron 04 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> How well do you think the internet is working here?

The internet actually works pretty damn well. Hence why the supposed refugees have phones and apparently laptops. Wifi isn't the preserve of the wealthy these days, with rural peasants being 2/3G enabled and internet cafes as popular as regular cafes in much of the 3rd world. The refugee camps have internet. Jordan has internet. If you really have found living conditions in either of those two places intolerable to the point the UK becomes your goal, you would have had ample time to research what lies ahead before making the trip to Europe. They certainly seem very well informed about how dire France and Greece are.

> As for remarkably violent, no doubt some of them are violent, (it depends upon you view point I suppose), five years of war might have something to do with that. But once again do you know how you might react after putting everything you have on the line and then it appears someone is about to take it away?

Fair enough. It is a stretch to say even a majority are violent. But of those who are its yet another red-flag and does little to highlight yourself as first-rate material for UK residency. You want to throw stones at police (I wouldn't mind myself) before you've even set foot in this country? Don't be surprised, and don't claim abuse, when they cuff you.

> I have to love you use of "Do gooders" as a pejorative term, why is it such a bad thing to try and help someone. When did caring become a bad thing, just because it doesn't fit with what you want?

Having been employed for 13 years in an organisation that is every bit as passionate about the "pro-refugee/migrant" debate as you are (it institutionally argues from a strong leftist angle for open borders world-wide) I've been struck by just how misguided my fellow lefties are in so many areas, yet so convinced of their goodness and righteousness - disagree and you are a racist fascist. The do-gooding is often a proxy for just wanting to be seen to be doing something, to be contributing, to be an activist, to have a heart, to be taking a contrary angle to an evil government. As a result it is often at the least very naive, and at worst very damaging to the many people it chooses not to consider.

> If any one of these people were outside in your street most people would be appalled and try to get them help, because they're in France they can all f*ck off!

I see people out in the street every day in London. People who's lives the state appears unable to patch up and who are suffering from mental illness, drug addiction, or simply got unlucky. If we can't sort them out, I struggle to see why we should be making special arrangements for people who, relatively speaking, have already bypassed countries which were luxury compared to where they claim they are fleeing. If anyone is really coming from the wreckage shown in your drone footage of Damascus, they will be perfectly content with Slovenia (I would be!) or France. They'll almost certainly be granted asylum and should be content to learn whatever language is required in the process. They are, afterall, only coming here temporarily aren't they so don't really need to be getting jobs as merchant bankers or corporate lawyers?

As for needing to be in a country where there is a pre-existing community of your own, I think that is bollox. When I came to the UK the move was in many ways economically disadvantageous. There was certainly a pre-existing community of my countrymen, but I had nothing to do with them, knew no-one here, and with no recourse to government funds lived a broke existence on £3.50/hr doing crap work living in slum accommodation for many years. During that time I endured a period of homelessness (a week, but it was enough to get a measure of how cold central London is in February). At no point did I feel any way entitled to make any demands of the state, of social services and was quite aware at the slightest miss-step I could, justifiably, be booted out.

The sense of entitlement from those in Calais is, frankly, astounding! I would have jumped at the chance of living in any one of the countries they have migrated through on their way here, no matter what hardships that meant, and would happily have learnt the language required.
 Roadrunner5 04 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

N = 1.. But for you weren't you English speaking? Settling in the UK a not a huge change.

I've lived in a non English speaking area of Germany (old east), NZ and the USA. Germany was definitely the hardest to feel part of the society and community due to the language.
2
 Roadrunner5 04 Mar 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Funny, that. Funnier still how you can write the above and not spot the inconsistency of your view.

What?

The world isn't black and white.. There will be other factors but the final hurdle to the UK is quite small compared to what they've seen and experienced.

You can understand a fear of France.. Actual border security won't be a massive pull issue.
2
 summo 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> You can understand a fear of France.. Actual border security won't be a massive pull issue.

the point people are making is when you arrive in Greece, then cross 4,5,6 safe EU countries and borders, you've turned yourself from war refugee into economic migrant. There is nothing to stop any of the jungle occupants walking into a police station in France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, etc etc.. and claiming asylum.




 MG 04 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

Purely out of nosiness, where are from?
 Big Ger 04 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> They leave Syria and other places because of desperate conditions. You seem to be putting it down to the pull effect of the UK rather than the huge push affect of what they have experienced.

There is a pull though, isn't there?

> "I'm chasing my hope because I want to study in the University of Cambridge," says Amaamer, 27, from Sudan. "It's a famous university. Since I was in secondary school I wanted to go there."

> Robah, 19, from Ethiopia says he wants to study in the UK, which he says is a "good place to be a student". Diafu, 21, from Ethiopia, also thinks he will be able to study in Britain. "People don't know any country, only England," he says. "I know the history of England." He also says the process of applying for legal status in Britain is "very fast"

> Ibrahim, 26, from Sudan, also believes better opportunities await across the Channel. "In England you get a big house," he says.

> "You can work in England [but] I will be a student there," Ibrahim adds. He says he will try to cross the Channel "every day" until he succeeds.

> "France is no good," says Robah. "In France there is no home and you spend months sleeping in the streets. It's different in England. They give you a house then you can wait while you get documents. "In England they give you documents after three months but in France you wait much longer."

> Mohammad, 27, says Britain is a "good country". "Everyone likes it," he says. Asked what he knows about it, he shrugs and says: "I have friends in Stoke." He says he has been to Britain once - in 2004 - but was deported to Iraq.

> "There is a man I love so much - David Beckham," says Alpha, a Mauritanian carpenter who has built a thatched house in the Jungle camp. "Even my house is called David Beckham House."
Post edited at 23:52
 off-duty 05 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

I think an anonymous "Like" isn't good enough for this post.
1
 Roadrunner5 05 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

But that's just passing the book.. And as the most western block of nations an easy response.

The only way we can justify that (for me) is if we take x amount that Greece et al get. Not that it's for those out east to suffer.
2
 Simon4 05 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> You can understand a fear of France..

What you can actually understand, and was very obvious in my recent trip there, was the fear OF France for these violent, disruptive interlopers - and for very good and valid reasons, no "phobias", i.e. irrational fears here.

Paris stations were packed with French soldiers armed with automatic weapons, even sleepy Alpine Grenoble station, a place normally about as laid-back as it is imaginable for a substantial transport hub to be had an soldier outside the cafe with a rifle. France has the highest proportion of its population muslim of any major country, approximately 10% and has suffered accordingly. We all know about the 2 major attacks in Paris roughly a year apart, the Charlie Hebbdo attacks (including the less reported attacks on a kosher super market and the killing of a French policewoman in the street) and the major killings in the Bataclan and elsewhere. But there have been Islamic attacks in Marseille, Lyon and a whole series of other places, not least the train massacre prevented by alert US military people who just happened to be there and to have the guts to tackle the jihadi, the country is in a state of high tension and nervousness as a result.

Most of these economic migrants are Muslims, and yes that is a very clear factor in the extreme wariness and lack of wish to encourage them in any way. This is an entirely rational response, Islam is an aggressive, intolerant, expansionist ideology that brings conflict and chaos wherever it spreads, like a parasite passing from host to host and causing them to die hideously in succession.

France is now fighting for its survival, much as Germany is doing after mad Empress Merkel's utterly unilateral act of outrageous folly in inviting the whole world to come, we should be suitably grateful to them for fighting for their and our survival as ordered, advanced and civilised states and help them how we can - which is certainly NOT by doing ANYTHING to encourage the hordes to keep flooding over the Southern European borders.

 Simon4 05 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> A lot of people on here, either have no imagination, no empathy

Damn right mate, we're fresh out of "empathy", I don't even know what street "empathy" is on.

We are all monsters, who can no longer be swayed by feeble and transparently obvious and manipulative appeals to emotion or innumerable faked pictures of cute kids in distress, so all the amateur psychobabble in the world isn't going to sway us to agree with you, more likely to have the opposite effect. So you had better come up with some rational, thought-through, viable in the long-term arguments and come up with them fast, but you seem pretty short of those.
Post edited at 09:29
J1234 05 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:
So would you approve of something like the 1905 Aliens act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_Act_1905 and what is your view of that act. Do you think it was a good thing?
Post edited at 09:42
1
 wbo 05 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean: my opinion of this thread and many like is that many of the posters live in conditions of extreme comfort and wealth simply due to luck, but are quite happy to deny it to anyone else on the grounds that they are parasites, scrounges, dangerous or whatever.

These posters may think they are cleverer, harder working or so on but that isn't the case - people in Western Europe live in luxury due to luck and the whim of history and not their own particular merit, and a little more thought and empathy would not hurt

10
 Baron Weasel 05 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Have been following this fairly closely, and to be honest it's pretty f(&(*ng disgusting the way the French police and authorities, and the media - have handled the situation. These refugees have survived in many cases multiple tragedies, and now are enduring yet another one.

Couldn't agree more!
2
 Roadrunner5 05 Mar 2016
In reply to wbo:
Great post!
5
 Mike Stretford 05 Mar 2016
In reply to wbo:

> a little more thought and empathy would not hurt

What do you want to happen? An open borders policy? Do you not think the consequences of that would be unmanageable?

This thread was started about the dismantling of the Calais camp. I agree with the French authorities, the humanitarian thing to do is to close the camp, and accommodate the people elsewhere. As long as the camp is there unaccompanied children will be sent there and horrible things will happen to them (see today's independent). As long as the camp is there it will be used as a base for attempted crossings which will kill people. That is the conclusion my empathy and thought lead to. If you disagree with my conclusion fine explain why, but these broad brush accusations are getting tiresome.

On the broader issue of asylum I think the UK amongst others should offer asylum to the most needy, but that assessment should take place in the worst affected areas. The Dublin agreement is no longer appropriate, and encouraging a refugee/migrant trail that ends in Calais is just encouraging more misery.
 Roadrunner5 05 Mar 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:
People have waited for years in the camps in the desert. They are fed up with it.

i don't think an open border but I think we should be proud people see our nations as safe. We all need to take more in, or assist out there.

By luck we were born in safe wealthy nations.. Most of you seem to have the view of 'tough, deal with it'
8
 RomTheBear 05 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> What you can actually understand, and was very obvious in my recent trip there, was the fear OF France for these violent, disruptive interlopers - and for very good and valid reasons, no "phobias", i.e. irrational fears here.


There is fear of terrorism, and that's not irrational, who wouldn't be scared. But most people have the intellectual ability to make the difference between refugees, economic migrants , Muslims and terrorists.
5
Bogwalloper 05 Mar 2016
In reply to wbo:

> my opinion of this thread and many like is that many of the posters live in conditions of extreme comfort and wealth simply due to luck, but are quite happy to deny it to anyone else on the grounds that they are parasites, scrounges, dangerous or whatever.

> These posters may think they are cleverer, harder working or so on but that isn't the case - people in Western Europe live in luxury due to luck and the whim of history and not their own particular merit, and a little more thought and empathy would not hurt

Utter bollocks. People in Western Europe live in comparable luxury because they've moved on from a medieval religion which has held a large portion of the world back in the dark ages.

Wally
 John Ww 05 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> most people have the intellectual ability to make the difference between refugees, economic migrants , Muslims and terrorists.

One would indeed hope so - unfortunately it seems to have eluded SenzuBean, Krikoman et al.

JW
Bogwalloper 05 Mar 2016
In reply to wbo:

Don't get me started on the "luck" aspect of your post.

Wally
 Big Ger 05 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:



> i don't think an open border but I think we should be proud people see our nations as safe. We all need to take more in, or assist out there.

Where does this end though? If we start taking more in, wont that just encourage more to come? Migrants are coming from, (top 10 nations)

Syria Population: 22.85 million
Pakistan Population: 182.1 million
Afghanistan Population: 30.55 million
Iraq Population: 33.42 million
Eritrea Population: 6.333 million
Nigeria Population: 173.6 million
Somalia Population: 10.5 million
Sudan Area: 1.886 million
Gambia Population: 1.849 million

Total Population: 489 million people

Can Europe accommodate 1/4 of those? A 1/2?

> By luck we were born in safe wealthy nations.. Most of you seem to have the view of 'tough, deal with it'

Most of us would like to remain living in "safe healthy nations".
J1234 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

>

> Most of us would like to remain living in "safe healthy nations".

Yes absolutely and that is what these people want. The world is hugely unequal and with the spread of technology over the last few years a person in Eritrea can actually see for themselves how ace it is for us and how rubbish it is for them. Read up on the US/Mexican border to give yourself an idea of the issues of where Rich meets Poor.
Anyone who thinks these people are going to stop coming is a deluded.
It is a globalised world with global problems and to think we in the Global North can sail along having our lifestyle, and to imagine that people from the Global South will not come and try and have a slice, is to show as little global imagination as when Marie Antoinette, said "Let them eat cake"
3
 Roadrunner5 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

Exactly.. The U.S. View with Trump is let's punish Mexico, hurt them with trade, make them pay for the wall.. Ie widen the rich poor divide.. And cause more migrants.

Where does it end? When we assist in developing these countries, provide support, infrastructure, advice and assist in building stable successful nations. All the work on our end of the issue is quite frankly pissing in the wind.
3
 Big Ger 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> Where does it end?

Exactly the point I put to you above. How many migrants/refugees can we take in?


The other point some, ( not you,) seem to be missing is that those making the journey from Pakistan/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq/Eritrea/Nigeria/Somalia etc, tend to be the young and healthy.

Depriving the countries involved of their best young people, leaving them with old, sick and disabled populations, is creating a vast humanitarian welfare problem for the future.

So apart from the logistics of absorbing millions of migrants from these countries, there is the knock on effect in their homelands to consider.
Post edited at 20:45
J1234 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

>

> Depriving the countries involved of their best young people, leaving them with old, sick and disabled populations, is creating a vast humanitarian welfare problem for the future.

> So apart from the logistics of absorbing millions of migrants from these countries, there is the knock on effect in their homelands to consider.

A weak argument, the UK and most Global North will take educated people, Doctors, Nurses whatever. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/04/nhs-recruits-one-in-four-nur... there are other examples.
If people in the Global North want to look after No1 and stuff the rest, thats reasonable, but lets cut the hypocrisy. Just build a wall along the Med Coast and mount machine guns, its one answer.
3
 MG 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

>

> If people in the Global North want to look after No1 and stuff the rest, thats reasonable, but lets cut the hypocrisy.

That's putting it too strongly, but yes, most people do want to preserve what is good about our society, which would be difficult with mass immigration. Others need to sort themselves out, generally. There is space for some refugees but immigration needs careful control, and mostly we can do more to help in other ways than opening borders wide
J1234 06 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

Why is it putting it too strongly. We are in a Luxury Yacht and stamping on the fingers of the poor wretches who are drowning. This current migration crisis is just a harbinger.With climate change and desertification and just seeing how we live via the net and Sat TV, people in Africa would have to be a bit dim not to think it a great plan to cross the Med and head North.
5
 Sir Chasm 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

Not a good analogy. How about, we're in a luxury yacht and we can't see why the shipwrecked sailors in a liferaft tied to our neighbouring luxury yacht don't climb aboard when they've been invited and prefer to sit in their liferaft.
Lusk 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

Fair enough, but how many nurses do we need, a extra 1 or 2 Million by looks of it with your open door policy.
Have you ever bothered to listen to UK tradesmen, who are totally hacked off about immigration; forcing their wages down, working with total disregard of regulations etc., the list goes on.

> If people in the Global North want to look after No1 and stuff the rest, thats reasonable,

Yes it is. I, and Millions of others aren't going to be made to feel guilty by the likes of you going on about how lucky and privileged we are (edit: according to you) to be born in the UK.
Post edited at 21:50
 Big Ger 06 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

> A weak argument, the UK and most Global North will take educated people, Doctors, Nurses whatever. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/04/nhs-recruits-one-in-four-nur... there are other examples.

But not in the numbers now coming. Yes, "the north" will take educated people, as other countries will take our educated people. But the mass exodus of the young and fit away from the countries I have named is unprecedented.

To stick your head in the sand about the knock on effects of this serves no one any good.

> The mass displacement of so many young men poses great challenges to countries like Syria, homeland to more than half of those fleeing: The exodus deprives them of a demographic vital to reconstruction and economic growth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/europe/migration-of-young-men-poses...

> If people in the Global North want to look after No1 and stuff the rest, thats reasonable, but lets cut the hypocrisy. Just build a wall along the Med Coast and mount machine guns, its one answer.

Well if that's the level of debate you aspire to, have at it, see how far you get.
 RomTheBear 06 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:
> That's putting it too strongly, but yes, most people do want to preserve what is good about our society, which would be difficult with mass immigration. Others need to sort themselves out, generally. There is space for some refugees but immigration needs careful control, and mostly we can do more to help in other ways than opening borders wide

I dont think anybody opened borders wide. But realistically we can't build a sea wall over the Mediterranean. These people will come whether we want it or not.

We can try to de-incentivise economic migrants to come by making sure everybody is processed properly and fast through immigration centre and sent back immediately if they have no valid asylum claim.
There is also a good number of them who face certain death if sent back, and we should just make room for them, distribute them around Europe evenly, instead if just ignoring the problem.
Post edited at 23:27
1
 MG 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

Because few want to "stuff the rest", they just don't want to jeopodize their own position when helping.
 summo 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Reggie Perrin:

> Why is it putting it too strongly. We are in a Luxury Yacht and stamping on the fingers of the poor wretches who are drowning.

But, our luxury yacht, is furthest from the sinking ship, those in the water are swimming past many perfectly serviceable boats, just to reach ours? If they were only in genuine need of saving their lives, what was wrong with the first 5 or 6 boats? They aren't as nice, etc.. but they work and are safe.
 summo 07 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I dont think anybody opened borders wide. But realistically we can't build a sea wall over the Mediterranean. These people will come whether we want it or not.

I agree, the only solution is in Syria etc.. The UN, Nato, EU, USA all ignored the problem for years.. thinking it will fix itself by magic. Russia stepped in and has arguably made things worse. Russia was only able to step in the way it did, because the West did nothing of any value. It is our fault and we need to fix it, it that means ploughing more money into it, then we have little choice, our *uck up, our problem.
 krikoman 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Depriving the countries involved of their best young people, leaving them with old, sick and disabled populations, is creating a vast humanitarian welfare problem for the future.

Well of course they should all stay in a war zone and possibly be killed, what a stupid argument, of course it's the young leaving, they have more to live for and the best chance of making it!! It's not hard to work out who's going to leave first is it?
6
 Big Ger 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

So if we just, as many here would seem to want, have an open door policy to the many millions of young men and women refugees/migrants, are we not helping to create a humanitarian crisis back in the countries they came from?

I don't for one minute think that having an open door policy solves anything, I wholeheartedly believe it would create a greater problem overseas.
1
 krikoman 07 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> The internet actually works pretty damn well. Hence why the supposed refugees have phones and apparently laptops. Wifi isn't the preserve of the wealthy these days, with rural peasants being 2/3G enabled and internet cafes as popular as regular cafes in much of the 3rd world. The refugee camps have internet. Jordan has internet. If you really have found living conditions in either of those two places intolerable to the point the UK becomes your goal, you would have had ample time to research what lies ahead before making the trip to Europe. They certainly seem very well informed about how dire France and Greece are.

So you think there's perfectly adequate internet in Damascus, where there's no water and no electricity, their first priority is internet access. You can see how this might be a little hard to understand. But I suppose you know best.

You also seem to be saying that they should go anywhere else but here Slovenia and France at least, but maybe not Germany eh?

Why do you think we should let everyone else shoulder the burden? Why should they have to do things you don't want us to do?

What makes us so special, that we can turn our backs and think someone else should do what's right? Is it because you live here and you don't want filthy immigrants coming here?
6
 MG 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Why do you think we should let everyone else shoulder the burden?

Have you failed to notice the £2.3b we have spent on helping Syrians since 2012 and that we give more than any other country bar the US? Just because we aren't happy taking in those who turn up at Calais, doesn't mean we let everyone else shoulder the burden.
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> So if we just, as many here would seem to want, have an open door policy to the many millions of young men and women refugees/migrants, are we not helping to create a humanitarian crisis back in the countries they came from?

Nobody wants an open door policy. We just want to make sure that anybody with a valid asylum claim has a chance to take refuge in a safe place for the time being, whilst at the same time doing everything we can to secure peace and stability in the countries they come from.

The humanitarian crisis is here and now for those stuck in a country ravaged by a bloody civil war, it's ludicrous to suggest that letting them die in Syria is somehow better for them.
Post edited at 10:18
1
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> Have you failed to notice the £2.3b we have spent on helping Syrians since 2012 and that we give more than any other country bar the US? Just because we aren't happy taking in those who turn up at Calais, doesn't mean we let everyone else shoulder the burden.

But he has a point that we probably could take in more refugees than we currently do on top of that.
Lusk 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Well of course they should all stay in a war zone and possibly be killed, .....

Come on Krik, cut the bullcrap, no one is, or has, suggesting that!
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Come on Krik, cut the bullcrap, no one is, or has, suggesting that!

Well it's pretty much what Big Ger was suggesting if you are reading his post.
5
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> But, our luxury yacht, is furthest from the sinking ship, those in the water are swimming past many perfectly serviceable boats, just to reach ours? If they were only in genuine need of saving their lives, what was wrong with the first 5 or 6 boats? They aren't as nice, etc.. but they work and are safe.

But they do go in all the other ships. Those reaching Europe are a small share of the refugees, our if all of those not even 1% at best end up in Calais.

But I think we need to separate Calais with the overall refugees issues. Those in Calais are a mix of economic migrants and asylum seekers with family or links in the UK, hence why they seem hell bent on coming to the UK.
1
 krikoman 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Come on Krik, cut the bullcrap, no one is, or has, suggesting that!

I suggest you re-read Big Ger's posts, that's how they come across to me, and not only me by the looks of it.
3
 MG 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

That, I would guess, is because you seem not to distinguish between a) those leaving wars, b) those in countries where there is a war, and c) those simply moving for economic reasons. You seem to view them all rather condescendingly as poor people needing our help. At a guess, Big Ger was suggesting it might be better if those in categories b) and c) stayed put and worked to help their countries sort things out, rather than forming part of a brain drain.
 krikoman 07 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> That, I would guess, is because you seem not to distinguish between a) those leaving wars, b) those in countries where there is a war, and c) those simply moving for economic reasons. You seem to view them all rather condescendingly as poor people needing our help. At a guess, Big Ger was suggesting it might be better if those in categories b) and c) stayed put and worked to help their countries sort things out, rather than forming part of a brain drain.

It could also be said that out of the three options you give to distinguish between the groups a lot of people, tend to paint them all with the same economic brush, without any real evidence to back up their reasoning for this. It suits their reasoning to class them as economic migrants to classify their guilt at basically doing nothing. I've met loads of these people, to get my big brush out, who don't like foreigners, except for their foreign friends, if they have any, who aren't really like the "others". It's the same old xenophobic, sometimes racist, arguments we've all hear a thousand times before.

I'd like to know how a five year old girl could help sort out the troubles in her country, except by way of another tragic death that'll make the headlines for a day, until Kim Kardashian farts somewhere in the world and that becomes more important.

The kids in Syria have had five years of no school, who do you think this helps the prospect of a country being helped out of its problems, especially in the middle east with ISIS ready and willing to turn then to the "right way" of doing things and what the quran says they should be doing.

When there's some on here who can't see a picture of a devastated city, who then tells me that the internet would be available and that the people coming from those cities, should be doing their homework, to find out they're not welcome before setting off and they'd be better staying there, forgive me for not taking a whole lot of notice of what they are suggesting.
2
 MG 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The kids in Syria have had five years of no school,

Thanks for proving my point beautifully. There are 3.8 million children in school in Syria. Because some (many) Syrian children are not, does not mean all are not.
 krikoman 07 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> Thanks for proving my point beautifully. There are 3.8 million children in school in Syria. Because some (many) Syrian children are not, does not mean all are not.

OK let me qualify that, a lot of the kids in Syria have had no education for 5 years.

"2.7 million of the 6.4 million Syrian children of school age" over a third!! I suppose they should all be still in their classrooms watching the internet.

http://www.aworldatschool.org/pages/scaling-up-to-reach-one-million-refugee...
2
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:
> That, I would guess, is because you seem not to distinguish between a) those leaving wars, b) those in countries where there is a war, and c) those simply moving for economic reasons. You seem to view them all rather condescendingly as poor people needing our help. At a guess, Big Ger was suggesting it might be better if those in categories b) and c) stayed put and worked to help their countries sort things out, rather than forming part of a brain drain.

That is not what Big Ger seemed to suggest nor did he make this distinction. That's exactly why I criticised his post but he's free to make himself clearer on that point if he wishes to.

I think we all agree there is no point to take in millions of economic migrants at this point in time when are are already struggling to process genuine refugees.

However that shouldn't be an excuse for closing the doors to genuine refugees with valid asylum claims. We have historically high number of asylum claims but this is still only 260 claims per 100,000 heads of EU population. We can deal with them and spread the cost if we have the political will do to so, instead of leaving the problem with countries at the EU borders.
Post edited at 18:35
1
 Big Ger 07 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nobody wants an open door policy. We just want to make sure that anybody with a valid asylum claim has a chance to take refuge in a safe place for the time being, whilst at the same time doing everything we can to secure peace and stability in the countries they come from.

Sure, I cannot imagine that most reasonable people would have a problem with that. It's in the way they "apply" that problems occur. Would you think most people at Calais jungle have a valid asylum claim? If so, why are they not making it in France?

> The humanitarian crisis is here and now for those stuck in a country ravaged by a bloody civil war, it's ludicrous to suggest that letting them die in Syria is somehow better for them.

That's why no one, (outside of your slightly histrionic "let them in",) group would make that suggestion.
 Big Ger 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> I suggest you re-read Big Ger's posts, that's how they come across to me, and not only me by the looks of it.

You seem to have missed out that I gave a list of the top ten countries from which migrants are coming, not all of them are war zones. You also seem to have missed that I used the word "migrants", not asylum seekers.


Here's my quotes again, just in case you misread them the first time;

> Depriving the countries involved of their best young people, leaving them with old, sick and disabled populations, is creating a vast humanitarian welfare problem for the future. So apart from the logistics of absorbing millions of migrants from these countries, there is the knock on effect in their homelands to consider.

> So if we just, as many here would seem to want, have an open door policy to the many millions of young men and women refugees/migrants, are we not helping to create a humanitarian crisis back in the countries they came from?
Post edited at 20:29
 RomTheBear 07 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> Sure, I cannot imagine that most reasonable people would have a problem with that. It's in the way they "apply" that problems occur. Would you think most people at Calais jungle have a valid asylum claim? If so, why are they not making it in France?

If they don't have a valid asylum claim, or don't want to make one in France, they can be sent back. I have no problem with that. However we should make space for those who do.

> That's why no one, (outside of your slightly histrionic "let them in",) group would make that suggestion.

So what is your suggestion, or your point ? exactly ? If you agree that we shouldn't send back people who face certain death or persecution, then we all agree.
Post edited at 20:48
 Big Ger 07 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If they don't have a valid asylum claim, or don't want to make one in France, they can be sent back. I have no problem with that. However we should make space for those who do.

Agreed.

> So what is your suggestion, or your point ? exactly ? If you agree that we shouldn't send back people who face certain death or persecution, then we all agree.

If you can point out where I have given the slightest scintilla of a smidgeon of a hint that I support "sending back people who face certain death or persecution," then I will wholeheartedly apologise.
 summo 07 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> However that shouldn't be an excuse for closing the doors to genuine refugees with valid asylum claims. We have historically high number of asylum claims but this is still only 260 claims per 100,000 heads of EU population.

I think what annoys people more arent the Asylum seekers, but the migrant EU workers, no other EU country has seen anything like the numbers that the UK has. One or the other and most people wouldn't care, but if people see the UK being open doors for everyone, it's easy for the far right to draw the voters in and average joe doesn't differentiate between migrant worker, refugee and asylum seeker.
Pan Ron 07 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

My next door neighbour in Accra, a girl of 9, lives in the breeze blocks of a house under construction, with no running water or electricity. When the house is completed, her builder-father and his family will be booted out. Lizzie hasn't gone to school in two years, with the only education she gets being the informal classes we give her when she enthusiastically climbs our fence, having first diligently changed in to her old school uniform before doing so.

She's poor and missing out on essentials. Do you propose she automatically has a right to life in the UK? I'd love to bring her here. I bet that skinny little, pig-tailed, African girl would work harder at school than most of those going to Eton.

But if we agree to allow her and her family in, what about the tens of thousands of other faceless poor also in Ghana, one of the more prosperous West African nations? And if they're allowed, then surely we need to look to the even more deprived in neighbouring Togo, Benin, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Liberia and Mali. That's just a handful of West African countries, a tiny slice of the planet...there are probably well over a hundred other nations or failed states equally or even more worthy. Almost 3 billion live on under $2 a day. Where do you set the limits? There are, or were, or are future threats of, conflict in nearly all those countries I listed. Intermittent electricity. Disease. Most there could only dream of coming in the kind of money that is being paid to people smugglers by those making it all the way to Calais.

The problems of the world are far too big to be solved by opening the doors of the rich world to every "poor" person, not to mention impossible to finance. Borders exist everywhere - you cross one the moment you leave your house in the morning and lock the door. But right now thousands are being encouraged to ignore those borders by the prospect of an open door policy, despite the existing asylum rules being necessarily strict. The refugee camps in Turkey, the first place of safe refuge, are actually of a high standard - there is no "need" to trek through Europe, let alone come to England. And it makes complete sense to clear out Calais. Given some 300,000 Japanese made homeless by the Tohoku earthquake are still living in makeshift camps, some 5 years on, the theatrics of those who on one hand deplore the conditions in Calais but on the other refuse to be moved to improved official accomodation, stirs zero sympathy in me.

I don't think you were really accusing those agreeing with the clear-out at Calais of racism. But I strongly suspect those who are appalled by the idea, who seem to think the EU is being grossly negligent and the UK unfair, actually have an incredibly naive understanding of just how much of the world lives in conditions intolerable by our standards. The conditions in Calais are the norm for a great many of the world's population and the risks of day-to-day life on par with those made in the boat crossings of the Med. That's not even considering the fact that those who make it as far as Europe are the wealthy ones, the ones who can scrape up the 5,000 Euro+ of credit required.

While no doubt well meant, if police clearing protestors in Calais convinces you that a travesty is occurring I really feel you need to experience a bit more of the world first-hand.
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> (In reply to RomTheBear)
> [...]
>
> I think what annoys people more arent the Asylum seekers, but the migrant EU workers, no other EU country has seen anything like the numbers that the UK has.

That's not even true. Neither in relative or absolute terms.

In absolute terms, Germany has more non-national from another EU member state than the UK.

In relative terms, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria have more non-national from another EU member state per capita than the UK.
Non-Eu countries like Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland also have way more EU immigrants per share of population than the UK.

> One or the other and most people wouldn't care, but if people see the UK being open doors for everyone, it's easy for the far right to draw the voters in and average joe doesn't differentiate between migrant worker, refugee and asylum seeker.

Well maybe the key here would be to give the average Joe a basic understanding of the facts ? Immigration is one of the top concern of the electorate, yet every study shows it is one of the topic where people are the most misinformed.
Post edited at 11:10
1
J1234 08 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
>

> Well maybe the key here would be to give the average Joe a basic understanding of the facts ?

Quite correct. If you watch a minute or two of this video https://youtu.be/MHplEJgevqM?t=19m15s it shows that the public perception of migration and the actual facts can be way out. I fully accept the video is from 2014, but the case is still there that peoples responses to the subject can be ill informed.
Try this youtube.com/watch?v=MHplEJgevqM& and start at 19.06 to see what I am refering to.

What exactly does someone Dislike about that?
Post edited at 11:31
3
 krikoman 08 Mar 2016
In reply to David Martin:

Most of what you wrote I agree with to an extent.

It's the overall painting of "the whole" of the people in Calais as economic migrants, which isn't true. The French have delayed processing people, I presume so they don't then become responsible for them.

The clearing of the camp was supposed to be an orderly affair, and the people there were given notice that they needed to move their stuff within the next couple of days. Within hours of this the bulldozers moved in!

Would you be pissed off?

To be honest, telling me how bad it is elsewhere, doesn't really help. This argument is trotted out far too often as an excuse for doing f*ck all anywhere. Yes it's bad elsewhere, but it's also bad here, best case scenario let's make everywhere better. In the meantime let's do what we can now.

We could keep everyone in Syria, wait till most of them are killed, then we only have a few people who will need our help.
3
 thomasadixon 08 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It's the overall painting of "the whole" of the people in Calais as economic migrants, which isn't true. The French have delayed processing people, I presume so they don't then become responsible for them.

This is entirely true. Every single person in the Calais camp is living in a safe country where they can, if they wish, seek asylum. They're instead choosing to break our laws to come here. They're economic migrants.

> The clearing of the camp was supposed to be an orderly affair, and the people there were given notice that they needed to move their stuff within the next couple of days. Within hours of this the bulldozers moved in!

> Would you be pissed off?

If I was squatting on someone else's land and they moved me off? Possibly, but I wouldn't expect anything different, and I'd have no right to.
 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> That's not even true. Neither in relative or absolute terms.
> In absolute terms, Germany has more non-national from another EU member state than the UK.
> In relative terms, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria have more non-national from another EU member state per capita than the UK.
> Non-Eu countries like Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland also have way more EU immigrants per share of population than the UK.

But you can't compare like for like. It depends on the strength of the economy, un/employment levels, skilled or unskilled workers, wage levels, benefits/welfare system, ability of infrastructure (housing or lack of, schools etc.) to cope. You can't compare them equally.

I can't actually believe that per capita, Ireland has more migrant workers than the UK.
Post edited at 14:03
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> But you can't compare like for like. It depends on the strength of the economy, un/employment levels, skilled or unskilled workers, wage levels, benefits/welfare system, ability of infrastructure (housing or lack of, schools etc.) to cope. You can't compare them equally.

I don't know, from what I've read we do better than average to attract the skilled ones and better than average on employment levels.

> I can't actually believe that per capita, Ireland has more migrant workers than the UK.

Why does it surprise you ? In fact per capita they have about twice as many eu migrants as the UK.
They are notorious for having built up their economy by attracting lots of companies with low taxes which in turn have hired lots of skilled people from Europe.
Post edited at 15:49
1
 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheEUBear:
> I don't know, from what I've read we do better than average to attract the skilled ones and better than average on employment levels.

Skilled, half the workers in lincs and east Anglia might be skilled at something, but most are picking veg. London hotels, probably littered with Europeans with degrees doing jobs that don't need them. There is skilled and using or needing a skill.



> They are notorious for having built up their economy by attracting lots of companies with low taxes which in turn have hired lots of skilled people from Europe.

I presume you mean locating the 'hq' there, then selling or buying services to their much bigger offices elsewhere in Europe to avoid tax etc..
Post edited at 16:23
 Bob Hughes 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> I presume you mean locating the 'hq' there, then selling or buying services to their much bigger offices elsewhere in Europe to avoid tax etc..

A lot of tech companies have a decent number of people based in ireland. EMC assembles storage servers in Cork, Google's EU HQ is in Dublin (and employs central functions like legal, marketing etc - their local offices are basically sales offices), Twitter (for what its worth...), Salesforce (a Spanish friend moved to Dublin to work for them - he looks after Iberian clients), Hubspot (i was recently in the market for Mkt Automation software and their Iberia sales rep is based in Dublin).
 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Well of course they have to some folk there, they can't just have someone at home in a front room answering the phone, which isn't unheard of with some shell companies.

Ireland is the new Luxemburg.
Post edited at 16:46
 Timmd 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> Can you be evicted from a place you are trying to escape from?

You can be evicted from a temporary home/shelter.
2
 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> You can be evicted from a temporary home/shelter.

They can always walk into the Calais police station and claim asylum?
 Timmd 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

I dare say they could.
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> Skilled, half the workers in lincs and east Anglia might be skilled at something, but most are picking veg. London hotels, probably littered with Europeans with degrees doing jobs that don't need them. There is skilled and using or needing a skill.

This is a completely distorted picture of reality. Only 15.1% of EU workers in the UK are in the "elementary occupations" professional category as defined by the ONS.

The rest is spread in skilled trades, managers and professionals, sales, caring, leisure... It's a very mixed picture of lots of people doing all sorts of jobs.

Source : labour force survey 2014.
Post edited at 17:06
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> Well of course they have to some folk there, they can't just have someone at home in a front room answering the phone, which isn't unheard of with some shell companies.

> Ireland is the new Luxemburg.

Thats bullshit, they have thousands of people there doing real engineering jobs and huge European data centres. It's the main eu base for many foreign tech companies.

And they pay very well it seems, most of my friends with Google jobs there seem to be making a lot more bucks than I do !
Post edited at 17:19
1
 Timmd 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> Ireland is the new Luxemburg.

What do you base this viewpoint on?
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to Timmd:
> What do you base this viewpoint on?

You probably have noticed by now the usual pattern with summo. He just throws something on the forum without even doing a minimal fact check.

When you call him out on it, he just changes the topic by throwing another unverifiable claim.
Post edited at 17:35
2
 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> What do you base this viewpoint on?

Because when Juncker was president he set up the tax scheme to draw in lots of multi nationals looking to 'minimise' their taxes.

 summo 08 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You probably have noticed by now the usual pattern with summo. He just throws something on the forum without even doing a minimal fact check.
> When you call him out on it, he just changes the topic by throwing another unverifiable claim.

Please see the above, or you can just google your EU boss, Juncker, his less than honourable financial history whilst in charge of his small city.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=juncker+luxembourg+tax+multi+nationals
 Slarti B 08 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> This is a completely distorted picture of reality. Only 15.1% of EU workers in the UK are in the "elementary occupations" professional category as defined by the ONS.

What is the percentage of EU workers in the UK in the "Low skilled jobs" category as defined by the ONS?

> Source : labour force survey 2014.
Can you point me to the original data ( I can only see second hand reports); I have been trying to find it on ONS site but am struggling.
Post edited at 19:49
 Bob Hughes 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

Google employs 5,000 people in Dublin, Facebook and LinkedIn 1000 each.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/google-hits-5000-employee-lev...
 RomTheBear 08 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> Please see the above, or you can just google your EU boss, Juncker, his less than honourable financial history whilst in charge of his small city.


That's another one of your "pattern" nice attempt to change the topic again.
Post edited at 20:16
1
 krikoman 08 Mar 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> This is entirely true. Every single person in the Calais camp is living in a safe country where they can, if they wish, seek asylum. They're instead choosing to break our laws to come here. They're economic migrants.

I'm glad you can be so confident, with so few facts. Any Syrian person in the camp has a right under the Geneva convention to claim asylum are you telling me there are no Syrians in Calais, because that's not what the charities working there are saying?

> If I was squatting on someone else's land and they moved me off? Possibly, but I wouldn't expect anything different, and I'd have no right to.

That wasn't what I said though was it, I try again, they were told it was going to happen in a few days, and they should get their shit together. Without any warning it was started within a few hours, there by removing the time people had to gather their things and make plans to move. May be, just maybe, all they had in there world was in the camp busy getting bulldozed!!

3
 Big Ger 08 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm glad you can be so confident, with so few facts. Any Syrian person in the camp has a right under the Geneva convention to claim asylum are you telling me there are no Syrians in Calais, because that's not what the charities working there are saying?

So, as they are in a safe country they should claim asylum there.



 John Ww 08 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

And now the circle is complete (again), as we're back where we started. Time t call it a draw in my opinion. Bye.

JW
 Big Ger 08 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Interesting statistics:
> According to the Home Office, the number of detected clandestine entry attempts to Britain via European ports and train tunnels increased from around 1,000 per month in 2008-12 to 2,000 in the late 2013, before rising to 4,000 in 2014 and almost 13,000 in July 2015. The increase is caused both by a rise in the number of people trying to enter Britain—many of them fleeing war-torn parts of the Middle East and Africa—and by the fact that they are more tenacious. Most are now willing to try 11 or 12 times, up from five or six times a year ago, reckons Franck Duvell of the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21694407-twelvefold-increase-comes-aw...
 thomasadixon 08 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm glad you can be so confident, with so few facts. Any Syrian person in the camp has a right under the Geneva convention to claim asylum are you telling me there are no Syrians in Calais, because that's not what the charities working there are saying?

Everybody in the world has the right to claim asylum. Syrian or whatever, these people are economic migrants. We know this from the basic facts - they're in France, a perfectly safe country equivalent to ours, and they're choosing to squat in a squalid camp so that they can try to illegally enter the UK. Wherever they've come from that's true.
 Slarti B 09 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This is a completely distorted picture of reality. Only 15.1% of EU workers in the UK are in the "elementary occupations" professional category as defined by the ONS.

I still can't find the original statistics on ONS web site and Rom hasn't responded to my request for the origin of his stats above. The best I can find via Google is Migration Watch which quotes June 2014 ONS statistics at second hand.

According to their analysis, 59% of EU workers in UK who have arrived since 1997 are in Low skilled Jobs.
Looking at workers from countries that have Joined EU since 2004 (EU10, Eastern European and Baltic states) 72% are in low skilled jobs.

If these figures are correct then it seems Summo's version of reality is more accurate. But if you can show me alternative figures I will happily be corrected.
 Big Ger 09 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

More evidence that an "EU border" is a failure as an idea.


> Slovenia has introduced new border restrictions for migrants as part of efforts to close the Balkans route from Greece to Western Europe. Only migrants who plan to seek asylum in the country, or those with clear humanitarian needs will be allowed entry. In reaction, Serbia said it would close its borders with Macedonia and Bulgaria to those without valid documents. The future of the EU's passport-free Schengen zone is already in doubt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35760534
 summo 09 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That's another one of your "pattern" nice attempt to change the topic again.

nope, I said Ireland is the new Luxembourg, some else asked how. So I pointed out that Juncker introduced new tax policies to there when president that lured in multi nationals looking to reduce their tax bill. So it was directly related to previous threads.

The fact is you don't like anyone picking fault with your beloved EU and you are happy to resort to name calling and distraction if they do. Remove the blinkers.

 summo 09 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Google employs 5,000 people in Dublin, Facebook and LinkedIn 1000 each.

google has 55,000 globally though,

but another article shows 2,500 in Ireland, and 2300 in the UK, wonder where the truth lies. People employed in Ireland but actually do most of their worked beyond there?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/is-it-possible-to-work-ou...

this article would suggest facebook has less than 500 in Ireland and some interesting tax deals. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/facebook-defends-its-34m-tax-bill-...

so if many of the real number of workers in Ireland are not Irish(as suggested by someone else), plus they pay vastly reduced tax in Ireland, who are the fools?

 Simon4 09 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
These Balkan countries have a history of 1000 years and more of fighting merciless Moslem invasions, and at various times achieving narrow victories or suffering crushing defeats leading to mass-rape, despoiling and devastation of their countries. The last thing they want, for very good historical and for that matter current reasons, is a huge uncontrolled, unlimited wave of third-world, Islamic invasion in the guise of refugees from conflicts largely driven by vicious inter-Islamic, inter-tribal, infinitely long-standing hatreds. This is particularly the case when they know, as we all do, that both the hatreds and the Islamic ideology that drives them is brought with them, rather than left behind as it should be when they get to civilised, ordered countries. These flotsam and jetsam seem to want to recreate the catastrophic social ills that destroyed their own countries in the places they are fleeing to, rather than jettison them as the massively destructive failures they are.

The small Balkan countries joined the EU partly because they thought they could get large money transfers from the richer, gullible countries, but mostly because they see themselves as European, heirs to a 1000 years of enlightenment, tolerance and civilisation and culture. What they certainly do NOT want is to see their fledgling, fairly fragile and not very rich societies destroyed by mass waves of Islamification and savagery.

Ironic that the EU seems to be doing its best to turn the Europe in its name into the Middle East of chaos, misery and civil strife. These small countries have looked at Merkel and her pet Luxembourg drunk Junker floundering and dictating being completely ineffectual to stop the hordes, now they are saying "lets try a really good fence".

It may not work, but it can scarcely fail worse than what the EU is doing, has been doing for years and shows no signs of changing other than doing even more stupid, capitulatory things like the insane sucker deal they may or may not have agreed with the aggressive, predatory and increasingly Islamic Turkey.
Post edited at 10:46
 RomTheBear 09 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
No logical link between this

> nope, I said Ireland is the new Luxembourg, some else asked how.

And that :

> So I pointed out that Juncker introduced new tax policies to there when president that lured in multi nationals looking to reduce their tax bill. So it was directly related to previous threads.


> The fact is you don't like anyone picking fault with your beloved EU and you are happy to resort to name calling and distraction if they do. Remove the blinkers.

Where us the name calling ? I'm just pointing out that on every topic you just change the discussion when your facts have proven to be wrong (at least 3 times on this thread). Your answer to any topic seem to be "EU!! Juncker !! Evil conspiracy !"
Post edited at 16:54
2
 RomTheBear 09 Mar 2016
In reply to Slarti B:
It's Eurostat and ONS labour force survey 2014.
Data available in raw format there,

summary available on migration observatory:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/commentary/what-do-we-know-about-e...

It's got lot of others interesting numbers if you're interested in knowing more about the nature of eu immigration in the uk.
Post edited at 17:21
 Bob Hughes 09 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> google has 55,000 globally though,

> but another article shows 2,500 in Ireland, and 2300 in the UK, wonder where the truth lies. People employed in Ireland but actually do most of their worked beyond there?

...or contractors. From the 2nd sentence of the article I linked to:

"A spokesman for the search giant said that the company now employs 2,800 staff and over 2,200 contractors, including IT contractors."

> so if many of the real number of workers in Ireland are not Irish(as suggested by someone else), plus they pay vastly reduced tax in Ireland, who are the fools?

Of course. Who on earth would want highly paid IT contractors paying taxes and spending money in their country?


 Big Ger 09 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
More shutdown..


> Macedonia has said it will no longer let any migrants through its border with Greece, effectively blocking the Balkan route north. The decision came after Slovenia barred access to migrants transiting the country. Croatia and Serbia then said they would follow suit. Some 13,000 migrants are now stranded at the Macedonia-Greece border.

> Serbia said it would close its borders with Macedonia and Bulgaria to those without valid documents because it could "not afford to become a collection centre for refugees"
> Croatia said it would close its borders to migrants as a "new phase in resolving the migrant crisis"
> Sebastian Kurz, the foreign minister of Austria, welcomed "the end of the 'waving through' [of migrants] which attracted so many migrants last year and was the wrong approach"
> Hungarian Interior Minister Sandor Pinter said he would send more police and soldiers to patrol the country's southern borders and would make preparations to erect a fence along its border with Romania - if necessary within 10 days

Can a solution OTHER than mass migration be found?
Post edited at 20:53
 Slarti B 10 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's Eurostat and ONS labour force survey 2014.
> Data available in raw format there,

Rom,
The Migration Observatory figures you quote are for "Elementary occupations" ie the lowest level of low skilled workers (level of a 16 year old school lever with a bit of work experience or H&S training). They ignore other categories of low skilled job. They also exclude Romania and Bulgaria so almost certainly understate the proportion of low skilled jobs.

Even without Romania and Bulgaria they show proportion of low skilled jobs among EU workers in UK as being 33.9% for all EU and 44.7% for E8 (Baltics and Eastern Europe excluding RomaniaBulgaria). Far above the 15.1% you quote for "Elementary Occupations"

Another Migration Observatory paper analyses Recent Migrant Workers (arrived in last 5 years).
For E8 workers; "Elementary Occupations" make up 43% of the total. They do not show the percentage for ALL low skilled workers but this is likely to be higher than the 72% quoted by Migrationwatch.

What is striking is difference between E14 and E8 migrants.
"In contrast to EU-14 nationals, Eastern European migrants are much more likely to be working in low-skilled jobs and this trend has continued in the past 5 years. The share of RMWs from EU-8 countries in the least skilled occupations increased from 37% to 43% between 2009 and 2014 while the share in managerial and professional occupations declined from 8% to 5%"

So, going back to start of this sub thread I think the figures support Summo's assertion. It is your figure of 15.1% that is misleading.
1
 Big Ger 10 Mar 2016
In reply to Slarti B:



> "In contrast to EU-14 nationals, Eastern European migrants are much more likely to be working in low-skilled jobs and this trend has continued in the past 5 years. The share of RMWs from EU-8 countries in the least skilled occupations increased from 37% to 43% between 2009 and 2014 while the share in managerial and professional occupations declined from 8% to 5%"

You're wrong! They are all doctors, nurses and care workers, who are going to work to make this country great again

 marsbar 11 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I only meet the children most of the time. The Eastern European children I teach all seem to want to learn and have a very strong work ethic. Their parents support the teachers and expect the children to be polite and do homework and extra homework.
1
 krikoman 11 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> These Balkan countries have a history of 1000 years and more of fighting merciless Moslem invasions, and at various times achieving narrow victories or suffering crushing defeats leading to mass-rape, despoiling and devastation of their countries.

Because other wars and conflicts have never seen these tactics before, have they?

And of course it's only Muslim's that carry out such acts it could never be Christians, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, or just about any group of people you'd like to pin a label on.

You're a pretty sick individual to be honest.
4
 Simon4 11 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And of course it's only Muslim's that carry out such acts it could never be Christians, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, or just about any group of people you'd like to pin a label on.

> You're a pretty sick individual to be honest.

I am cut to the quick by your denounciation.

Hang on, no I'm not, I don't give a damn what a delusional, blinkered virtue-signaller who refuses to recognise obvious realities says. I won't say "thinks" because the regressive left like you don't think, you emote and posture.

Islam is the only major world religion that has violence, expansionism and intolerance built into it as its fundamental doctrines, it is also by far the most aggressive and destructive at this time, none of the others are going on campaigns of world conquest. No other religion has as its core idea the doctrine that other religions must be forced, at the point of the sword (or AK 47), to convert or be killed, but that is one of Islam's most basic doctrines. It is the reason that all over the world, Islam invariably provokes conflict, tension and strife. If you do not see this it is entirely because you refuse to do so.

You are a moron, a rogue and a bigot, Guardianista.

And despite Guardianistas being so keen on the word "bigot", they never, ever know what it means - "one excessively and unreasonably devoted to their own creed and ideas and violently intolerant of opposing ones". You and all of the regressive left to a T!
Post edited at 08:46
1
J1234 11 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:
You never did say what you thought of the 1905 Aliens Act http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=635739&v=1#x8251052 or if you did, I missed it
Post edited at 08:46
1
 MG 11 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> And of course it's only Muslim's that carry out such acts it could never be Christians, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, or just about any group of people you'd like to pin a label on.

And no doubt the Japanese would be similarly wary of mass Chinese immigration. But that is hardly relevant to discussing the entirely understandable concerns that Balkan countries have about mass Islamic immigration. If your country and had been subject, as Simon4 notes, to a 1000 years of turmoil as a result of invasions from modern day Turkey and Syria, you too might be very concerned about limiting a large influx of people from a civil war in that region, do you not think?
 krikoman 11 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

I was talking about his tying of Muslims to Mass rapes and the rest of his shite!

The Germans raped and the Russian raped, it's been used as a weapon of war, unfortunately. It's not thte preserve of any group or army. Yet he likes to equate being Muslim with rapist and murderers, and it not the first time.

He also seems to have conveniently forgotten about the crusades and what the good old Christians did in the name of God.

I just hate the way he condemns whole faiths / religions / people as ALL being the same. Mention Israel though and you're anti-Semitic, doesn't matter if you're talking about Bibi or the IDF, you're accused of being a Jew hater.

There's a march on in London to protest Israeli actions against the Palestinians this weekend, why don't you come down.

2
Bogwalloper 11 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

You just don't get it do you? Simon is talking about NOW! The crusades were quite a long time ago in case you forgot.

Wally

 MG 11 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> There's a march on in London to protest Israeli actions against the Palestinians this weekend, why don't you come down.

So I can walk from A to B shouting and then feel good about myself and tell the internet about this after having no effect on anything whatsoever? No, I'll not bother, thanks.
 MG 11 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> The Germans raped and the Russian raped, it's been used as a weapon of war, unfortunately. It's not thte preserve of any group or army. Yet he likes to equate being Muslim with rapist and murderers, and it not the first time.

It tends to be the preserve of those who think they are intrinsically superior to others. It helps if others are viewed as subhuman and you have god on your side, of course. Since Islam still teaches both points as literal truth with no room for interpretation, it has particularly bad form when it comes to domination of others. Hence the entirely justified concerns. Other religions don't currently do this to the same extent, or currently hold power, so whataboutery doesn't really help.
 Bob Hughes 11 Mar 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> These Balkan countries have a history of 1000 years and more of fighting merciless Moslem invasions, and at various times achieving narrow victories or suffering crushing defeats leading to mass-rape, despoiling and devastation of their countries.

Oh come on, let's not pretend that this is a one way street. You can add to your "narrow victories" the destruction of 300 Bosnian Muslim villages, and the massacre of 3000 Muslims at srebrenica, just to pick an example that springs to mind.

> What they certainly do NOT want is to see their fledgling, fairly fragile and not very rich societies destroyed by mass waves of Islamification and savagery.

"Waves of islamification and savagery"? Have you been sniffing glue and reading Tintin comics?



> It may not work, but it can scarcely fail worse than what the EU is doing, has been doing for years and shows no signs of changing other than doing even more stupid, capitulatory things like the insane sucker deal they may or may not have agreed with the aggressive, predatory and increasingly Islamic Turkey.

2
 krikoman 12 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> It tends to be the preserve of those who think they are intrinsically superior to others. It helps if others are viewed as subhuman and you have god on your side, of course. Since Islam still teaches both points as literal truth with no room for interpretation, it has particularly bad form when it comes to domination of others. Hence the entirely justified concerns. Other religions don't currently do this to the same extent, or currently hold power, so whataboutery doesn't really help.

Once again, that's bullshit though isn't it?

Neither the Russian nor the Germans were fighting a religious war, were they?

In South Sudan where there as been more than 1,300 rapes in the last 5 month, and that's only the ones that have been reported. The Muslim community is 6% of the population, the majority 60% are Christians, so all your friend Simon4 has done is shown his true racist colours and his hatred of Muslims.

Again, it's not the region has nothing to do with it, I don't understand how you can't see through this, unless you don't want to.
6
 MG 13 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Did you actually read my post? Your reply seems completely unrelated to it.
 MG 13 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Neither the Russian nor the Germans were fighting a religious war, were they?

No. But they definitely thought of themselves as superior.


> In South Sudan where there as been more than 1,300 rapes in the last 5 month, and that's only the ones that have been reported.

Relevance, other than another example of my point above.

> Again, it's not the region has nothing to do with it,

If you think religion has nothing to.do with goings on in Syria, Iraq and most of the middle east then you are terminally ignorant. It is at the core of everything that happens or doesn't happen there. Most of tbe strife is one strand of Islam against another; sometimes it is against others. This is what happens when one ideology tries to dehumaise those who arent part of it and is why mass influx of Islamic immigrants will be problematic.
Post edited at 18:45
 summo 14 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Neither the Russian nor the Germans were fighting a religious war, were they?

you don't know much history then. Russia / Stalin removed religion so he was anti religion. Hitler was Christian and believed the Jews had betrayed them long long ago and held some kind of ideological hatred and lack of trust of them, hence his actions. They were obviously after a land grab, but many of their actions within were religious.

Look at yesterday's german election result, Merkel must be feeling the pressure now.


violentViolet 14 Mar 2016
In reply to summo

> Look at yesterday's german election result, Merkel must be feeling the pressure now.

In 2 out of the 3 Länder parties supporting Merkel's pro-immigration stance won, and CDU candidates who rebelled against it lost. Yes, the rise of the AfD is worrisome, but the narrative that is currently spun int the UK media is more narrative than reality
1
 summo 14 Mar 2016
In reply to violentViolet:
> In reply to summo
> In 2 out of the 3 L£er parties supporting Merkel's pro-immigration stance won, and CDU candidates who rebelled against it lost.

but Merkel's party lost those 2 areas. It was a vote against Merkel and those who went to AfD a vote against immigration. Either way she lost.

It's like UKIP/BNP taking Tory votes and Labour winning. You can't claim the Tories still won.

To ignore the trouble brewing is just more head in the EU sand.
Post edited at 07:57
violentViolet 14 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

More complicated than that. It wasn't "Merkel's CDU" that lost, CDU/CSU argue increasingly against Merkel's stance and are pretty anti immigration. The Grüne and SPD that won in RP and BaWü are pro immigration. If you look at distribution of previous votes from now AfD voters large majority were never voters, not votes swung away from CDU.

As I said, the number of votes gained by AfD is worrisome, as they're truly nasty, but when looking at the reports you should also bear in mind why something is reported in a certain way.
1
 summo 14 Mar 2016
In reply to violentViolet:

> As I said, the number of votes gained by AfD is worrisome, as they're truly nasty, but when looking at the reports you should also bear in mind why something is reported in a certain way.

however you look at it anti immigration gained votes. Until the EU leaders address the real problems in Syria, which will actually solve the problem and slow the flow, voters will fix things in their own way. Very few voters travel to Syria etc.. to physically fight IS or Assad, but they can vote for a party that is anti immigration. If that forces the likes of Merkel to wake up and take action, then the problem is solved. So much of it is in essence a protest vote.

Every report has an angle, very little is bias free.
 krikoman 15 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> you don't know much history then. Russia / Stalin removed religion so he was anti religion. Hitler was Christian and believed the Jews had betrayed them long long ago and held some kind of ideological hatred and lack of trust of them, hence his actions. They were obviously after a land grab, but many of their actions within were religious.

and I'd suggest you don't know much about history too. Are you really suggesting that the Russians got involved because they didn't like Hitler being Christian? Or that Hitler didn't like the Jews because they killed Jesus, implying that if they hadn't made that one little mistake they'd have been OK.

What about the Slaves, Poles, Gypsies, Poles, and people with physical or mental disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the dissenting clergy, Communists, Socialists.

The Poles aren't know for their love of Christianity are they?
2
 MG 15 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

>

> The Poles aren't know for their love of Christianity are they?

Only 95%+ Catholic
1
 krikoman 15 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:

> Only 95%+ Catholic

Which was the point I was making
2
 summo 15 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> and I'd suggest you don't know much about history too.

no, you said there wasn't any religious about their actions, I said there was. I never said they didn't also target people who weren't related to any religion as well the jews etc.. in hitlers case. Whilst they both had it in for various groups, they also had very specific religious targets, when jews were forced to wear badges, arm bands, stars etc.. you can hardly say they weren't deliberately sought out compared to other religious groups.
 krikoman 16 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:

> no, you said there wasn't any religious about their actions, I said there was. I never said they didn't also target people who weren't related to any religion as well the jews etc.. in hitlers case. Whilst they both had it in for various groups, they also had very specific religious targets, when jews were forced to wear badges, arm bands, stars etc.. you can hardly say they weren't deliberately sought out compared to other religious groups.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I said they weren't religiously motivated. IT might even be argued that attacking the Jews wasn't a religiously motivated act, more of a scapegoating of people who Hitler blamed for the economic situation in Germany at the time. It also gave a target to which he could rally the people against blaming them for ALL the ills Germany was suffering at the time. Much like Donald Trump is doing in America now; all their problems are caused by immigrant, mostly Mexicans in Donald's case, but Muslims too.

Of course the Jews were a religious target, but there not much evidence that Hitler invaded Poland because they were too Christian or not Christian enough for his liking, or that Hitler invaded Russia, because Uncle Joe wasn't a devout catholic or that he didn't mind being allies with Turkey as slightly less Catholic country than Poland. What about Holland, Belgium, France and Austria all to do with religion?

If you think the actions of WW2 Germany was somehow religiously motivated then I think you need to read a few books.
1
 Foxache 16 Mar 2016
In reply to Lenin:

> The world is hugely unequal and with the spread of technology over the last few years a person in Eritrea can actually see for themselves how ace it is for us and how rubbish it is for them

Yes the world is unequal, but this isn't just down to chance or luck. Much of the inequality in the countries we're referring to in this thread is a result of consistently bad choices and destructive behaviour (and we're talking over centuries here) of their populations in general, such as valuing some absurd, medieval belief system above all else, including reason, morality and common sense.

Why do you think it a reasonable course of action for anybody living in a country that they decide is comparatively 'rubbish' to just go and live in another country? Long-term that solves nothing. In fact it significantly worsens the situation because all of those able to leave (the wealthy, the young, the healthy) do so and their country of origin ends up with the worst (demographically speaking) and/or most corrupt or violent leftovers.

People have spoken of a lack of empathy in this thread, but they seem to be mistaking a knee-jerk, terminally naive and short-sighted emotional reaction for empathy. Just because someone doesn't share a hopelessly idealistic and narrow-minded view of dealing with the refugee crisis (not to mention the huge difference between refugee and economic migrant) doesn't mean they lack empathy, it just means they're thinking long term and they have a sense of self preservation.
I'm sick to death of this institutionalised sense of guilt, responsibility and borderline self-hatred that some British people seem to have which then totally clouds their judgment and I seriously dread to think what state this country would be in if their recommendations were followed. I know that I was very lucky to be born in a country like Britain and there's not a day goes by that I'm not grateful for that, but I'll be damned if I'm expected to feel guilty about it let alone allow that totally unjustified sense of guilt to then completely ruin the very thing I'm supposed to feel guilty for.

 krikoman 16 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> Yes the world is unequal, but this isn't just down to chance or luck. Much of the inequality in the countries we're referring to in this thread is a result of consistently bad choices and destructive behaviour (and we're talking over centuries here) of their populations in general, such as valuing some absurd, medieval belief system above all else, including reason, morality and common sense.

So what you're saying to the five year old child in Syria is, "I'm sorry but blame you forefathers it's all their fault".
It might also have something to do with our (the west's) meddling and foreign policy, at least some of the time.

> Why do you think it a reasonable course of action for anybody living in a country that they decide is comparatively 'rubbish' to just go and live in another country? Long-term that solves nothing. In fact it significantly worsens the situation because all of those able to leave (the wealthy, the young, the healthy) do so and their country of origin ends up with the worst (demographically speaking) and/or most corrupt or violent leftovers.

Does this apply to people leaving Britain too? Whole continents have been based on immigration, you only have to look at North America or Australia. Or are you saying that they've all got it wrong and they should move back to where their ancestors came from and give the country back to the indigenous inhabitants?

> ..., it just means they're thinking long term and they have a sense of self preservation.

It doesn't have to be one or the other though does it? Why does helping someone not live in fear, have to cause me or my families life to deteriorate at all? I actually think my families lives are enriched b helping others.

> I'm sick to death of this institutionalised sense of guilt, responsibility and borderline self-hatred that some British people seem to have which then totally clouds their judgment and I seriously dread to think what state this country would be in if their recommendations were followed. I know that I was very lucky to be born in a country like Britain and there's not a day goes by that I'm not grateful for that, but I'll be damned if I'm expected to feel guilty about it let alone allow that totally unjustified sense of guilt to then completely ruin the very thing I'm supposed to feel guilty for.

No one is asking you to feel guilty or hate yourself, that's for your to deal with. You don't have to feel guilty to want to help someone, there is such a thing as humanity, or altruism, or just plain caring, wanting to make the world a better place for someone other than yourself.

There are people on here remember, who couldn't understand why the Syrian refugees didn't check the internet first to see how shit it was trying to get to safety. This when there's no drinking water or electricity in many of the cities in Syria. Maybe this type of person could empathise just a little more.

The only thing you have to ask yourself is what would I want others to do if I was in their situation, you might expect people to do f*ck all ad let you die. Think how nice it would be if that didn't happen though.

I don't know why I get drawn into these type of thread, I think it's because I'm hoping we care more than some people seem to. I realise that commenting here doesn't achieve anything or change anyone's mind or attitude, maybe I just placates my guilt.
1
 krikoman 16 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:


> ......, it just means they're thinking long term and they have a sense of self preservation.


Sorry I missed this bit.

What about, thinking long term, we help someone, after the war they go back, sometime in the future we need their help, they think back and say well they helped me out when I was in need, of course I'll help you.

You know just thinking long term and all that.
2
 Foxache 17 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> So what you're saying to the five year old child in Syria is, "I'm sorry but blame you forefathers it's all their fault".

What relevance does a 5 year old child in Syria have?! I was simply making the point that the inequality in question is far more a result of choices and behaviour than just bad luck.

> It might also have something to do with our (the west's) meddling and foreign policy, at least some of the time.

As somebody else said before though: we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. It's not like we went steaming in to some safe, stable country and ruined everything. There was already a huge civil war raging.

> Does this apply to people leaving Britain too? Whole continents have been based on immigration, you only have to look at North America or Australia. Or are you saying that they've all got it wrong and they should move back to where their ancestors came from and give the country back to the indigenous inhabitants?

Yes it does, although nobody is leaving Britain en-masse and violently demanding entry to a country half way across the world purely for economic reasons.
I hardly see what relevance events from centuries ago has now. You're basically saying that just because something happened in the past, it should continue happening indefinitely. The conquest of places like Australia and North America is irrelevant because it can't be changed. More to the point we've all moved on and it wouldn't happen now because it's totally immoral.

> It doesn't have to be one or the other though does it? Why does helping someone not live in fear, have to cause me or my families life to deteriorate at all? I actually think my families lives are enriched b helping others.

Nobody has said otherwise.

> No one is asking you to feel guilty or hate yourself, that's for your to deal with. You don't have to feel guilty to want to help someone, there is such a thing as humanity, or altruism, or just plain caring, wanting to make the world a better place for someone other than yourself.

You seem to be mistaking other peoples' institutionalised guilt, and their expectation of others to share that guilt, for me actually feeling the same. I don't.
Being altruistic and a humanitarian does not mean reacting emotionally and impulsively and just assuming that everybody is as nice and caring as you are and has the same good motives as you do.

> There are people on here remember, who couldn't understand why the Syrian refugees didn't check the internet first to see how shit it was trying to get to safety. This when there's no drinking water or electricity in many of the cities in Syria. Maybe this type of person could empathise just a little more.

Nobody genuinely just concerned about their safety would deliberately bypass at least 9 perfectly safe European countries to then live in a slum on the French coast, violently demanding entry into Britain!

> The only thing you have to ask yourself is what would I want others to do if I was in their situation, you might expect people to do f*ck all ad let you die. Think how nice it would be if that didn't happen though.

If Britain were suddenly gripped by civil war and France was safe, I'd hope that the French would temporarily rehome me. If Ireland were safe, I'd hope that the Irish would temporarily rehome me. I wouldn't be dragging my family on an unnecessarily dangerous journey across an entire continent. In fact I'd want to remain as close to Britain as possible so that when things calmed down it'd be easier for me to get back and try to rebuild my life.

> I don't know why I get drawn into these type of thread, I think it's because I'm hoping we care more than some people seem to. I realise that commenting here doesn't achieve anything or change anyone's mind or attitude, maybe I just placates my guilt.

Again, you're mistaking foresight and common sense for a lack of empathy.

>What about, thinking long term, we help someone, after the war they go back, sometime in the future we need their >help, they think back and say well they helped me out when I was in need, of course I'll help you.

>You know just thinking long term and all that.

For someone who's so determined to live in Britain and Britain alone, I hardly think they're going to be waiting with baited breath until they can jump on a plane and fly back to Syria. You're missing the point of why they're so eager to live in Britain and talking about safety and stability is just muddying the waters because those are the motives for refugees, not economic migrants, and refugees seek safety and stability as close to their country of origin as possible. Why do you think so many have remained in camps actually within Syria itself?
I also think it's incredibly naive to think that, should the tables be turned and thousands of Westerners were camped in slums on the borders of a Middle-Eastern country, we'd be afforded even a fraction of the concern or courtesy.
Post edited at 12:48
 Roadrunner5 17 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

>

> I also think it's incredibly naive to think that, should the tables be turned and thousands of Westerners were camped in slums on the borders of a Middle-Eastern country, we'd be afforded even a fraction of the concern or courtesy.

So?

2
 krikoman 17 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:
>Why do you think it a reasonable course of action for anybody living in a country that they decide is comparatively 'rubbish' to just go and live in another country? Long-term that solves nothing. In fact it significantly worsens the situation because all of those able to leave (the wealthy, the young, the healthy) do so and their country of origin ends up with the worst (demographically speaking) and/or most corrupt or violent leftovers.

>> Does this apply to people leaving Britain too? Whole continents have been based on immigration, you only have to look at North America or Australia. Or are you saying that they've all got it wrong and they should move back to where their ancestors came from and give the country back to the indigenous inhabitants?

>>> Yes it does, although nobody is leaving Britain en-masse and violently demanding entry to a country half way across the world purely for economic reasons.

So you think we should stop all people emigrating from Britain in search of a better future?

How about people leaving their town of birth for a better future in another town, should we stop that too.
Doesn't this leave their town a little worse off, so we should ban that?

You seem to forget that Britain is made up from people all over the world, if people didn't move about freely we'd all still be living in Africa FFS!

> I also think it's incredibly naive to think that, should the tables be turned and thousands of Westerners were camped in slums on the borders of a Middle-Eastern country, we'd be afforded even a fraction of the concern or courtesy.

You may think it naive, but why do you think it's acceptable for Lebanon to accept 1.1 million people, a country less than half the size of Wales, while we will take 20,000 over 5 years.

You seem quite willing to let already poor countries take a disproportionate burden while we twiddle our thumbs and say, "we haven't quite decided what's best for you yet."

DO you base your willingness to help on your presumed lack of reciprocal assistance if we needed it. This is one of the most bizarre statements, in a whole list of bizarre statements. DO you only help people who've helped you first?

Or do you only help people who YOU think will help you if you needed help?

Isn't helping people we should all strive to do, for the sake of helping not because what you might of might not get out of it.

Hospitals would be an interesting place if they based their health care on your system of what they think you might do for them if they needed you.

Oh and the five year old girl, is relevant because you were blaming there situation on years of bad choices, what choices did she make, that she deserves to live in fear?
1
 Foxache 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> So you think we should stop all people emigrating from Britain in search of a better future?

Travelling the entire width of a continent to try to rinse a specific country for everything you can get is not the noble, innocent 'search for a better future' that you keep talking about.

> How about people leaving their town of birth for a better future in another town, should we stop that too.

> Doesn't this leave their town a little worse off, so we should ban that?

> You seem to forget that Britain is made up from people all over the world, if people didn't move about freely we'd all still be living in Africa FFS!

Ok this is just getting ridiculous now. We're talking about economic migrants choosing to make an unnecessarily long and dangerous journey half way across the world because they feel entitled to have a part of something that they like the look of from a country which owes them nothing, and you're equating this to people moving around within their country of birth or the migration of our species that pre-dates human history?!

> You may think it naive, but why do you think it's acceptable for Lebanon to accept 1.1 million people, a country less than half the size of Wales, while we will take 20,000 over 5 years.

For the same reason that I'd think it ridiculous if Lebanon were expected to accept huge numbers of refugees from a civil war in France.

> DO you base your willingness to help on your presumed lack of reciprocal assistance if we needed it. This is one of the most bizarre statements, in a whole list of bizarre statements. DO you only help people who've helped you first?

No.

> Or do you only help people who YOU think will help you if you needed help?

No.

> Isn't helping people we should all strive to do, for the sake of helping not because what you might of might not get out of it.

Yes. But why would anybody in their right mind want to help someone with a false sense of entitlement who seeks only to take what they can? And why would anybody willingly take a course of action that will do nothing but worsen the long-term situation for all involved?

> Hospitals would be an interesting place if they based their health care on your system of what they think you might do for them if they needed you.

Indeed they would, although I have no idea where you're getting any of this from. You label my statements as 'bizarre' and yet you seem to be making these bizarre assumptions based on points I've made in rebuttal to others' comments taken totally out of their original context.

> Oh and the five year old girl, is relevant because you were blaming there situation on years of bad choices, what choices did she make, that she deserves to live in fear?

This is a perfect example of you taking something out of context. Someone originally said that inequality was based on luck/chance, I made the point that it isn't and suddenly you're going on about some hypothetical five year old girl living in fear.
Post edited at 11:04
1
 krikoman 18 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:
> Travelling the entire width of a continent to try to rinse a specific country for everything you can get is not the noble, innocent 'search for a better future' that you keep talking about.

And your evidence for this is?

You did say economic migrants, but what are people who emigrate from Britain to Australia?

My question my seem bizarre but I was trying to show how ludicrous, some of your suggestions might be, and how far do you push your "people should stay we they are" attitude.

I suggest you re-read your posts.

AS for the little girl, which isn't at all out of context if you read what you posted, I'll try once more. You said ;

>"Yes the world is unequal, but this isn't just down to chance or luck. Much of the inequality in the countries we're referring to in this thread is a result of consistently bad choices and destructive behaviour (and we're talking over centuries here) of their populations in general, such as valuing some absurd, medieval belief system above all else, including reason, morality and common sense."

So what you're saying is they are in this situation because of "bad choices", so I'm presuming it's their fault.

My question is what do you say to the five year old child who's parents have been killed?

Is it her role in life to bear the burden of her predecessors "mistakes" or do we help her? It's quite an easy question.
Post edited at 11:30
3
 MG 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Is it her role in life to bear the burden of her predecessors "mistakes" or do we help her? It's quite an easy question.

We don't help her particularly and ignore the wider context because she happened to appear on a TV programme you watched by chance. We do what we can to help Syrians (say) by means of aid, support of UN operations, diplomacy etc. We try and maximise what we can do with the limited resources and power we have, with regard to the effects of all of this on our economic and social future, the future of middle east and geopolitics generally.
 krikoman 18 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:
> We don't help her particularly and ignore the wider context because she happened to appear on a TV programme you watched by chance.

I'm not saying we should, I'm trying to understand the rational, that there has historically been lots of bad "choices", so that should influence our decision to help or not.

I an talking about a hypothetical girl here, it's the thought process behind who, and why we should help people I'm trying to understand. There are millions of people who have no say in their destiny, yet according to Foxache, it's the fault of their forefathers, so I was trying to get to the point, when do you help? How long do you continue to blame someone else, no matter who, for not helping?

When do the blameless become valid, for our help? Or are they doomed for ever because, someone in their distant past made a "bad" decision?

How do you blame some without any power to change their lives for the situation they are in?

That doesn't have to be Syria or a war zone either, there's plenty of homeless people for whom "bad" decision by others could leave them where they are.

I also don't understand the bit about people shouldn't move around the world to try and find a better life for themselves.

We've always done it, we're doing it now, teachers and nurses all flocking to Australia for a better life, yet this only matters to Foxache when they are trying to come here, although he does seem confused about this too.


> We try and maximise what we can do with the limited resources and power we have, with regard to the effects of all of this on our economic and social future, the future of middle east and geopolitics generally.

And yet the Lebanon, seems to be doing more than us, with our limited resources, Jordan too for that matter.

And now Turkey is about to hold us to ransom.
Post edited at 13:11
2
 Foxache 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And your evidence for this is?

The fact that they've bypassed at least 9 other safe countries and travelled across Europe with the sole aim of gaining entry to Britain. The fact that they'd rather set up an illegal slum, show contempt for the French and French law than accept the asylum being offered to them there. Based on those two factors alone I'm baffled as to how you can come to the conclusion that they're poor, hard done-by refugees desperate only to escape the conflict in Syria.

> You did say economic migrants, but what are people who emigrate from Britain to Australia?

Who knows? British people emigrate for all sorts of reasons. They're certainly not violent. entitled, aggressive thugs looking to take as much as they can get and whoever they are, given the Australian immigration system they're forced to prove that they can actually contribute to the Australian society and economy before being allowed access, so it's not as if Australia is losing out. The two really are incomparable despite your repeated attempts to compare them, just as trying to compare prehistoric human migration to the situation in Calais is absurd.

> My question my seem bizarre but I was trying to show how ludicrous, some of your suggestions might be, and how far do you push your "people should stay we they are" attitude.

I've yet to see you show any of my suggestions to be ludicrous. I don't think you understand what my suggestions are.

> So what you're saying is they are in this situation because of "bad choices", so I'm presuming it's their fault.

Well ultimately, yes! Who else's fault is it? But it was you who then extrapolated that into me saying "it's their fault so we shouldn't help any of them"! You can put words in my mouth and then rebut them, but you're only debating with yourself.

> My question is what do you say to the five year old child who's parents have been killed?
> Is it her role in life to bear the burden of her predecessors "mistakes" or do we help her? It's quite an easy question.

Of course we help her. Nobody has said otherwise.
Post edited at 13:46
 Foxache 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> When do the blameless become valid, for our help? Or are they doomed for ever because, someone in their distant past made a "bad" decision?

Nobody has said this!

> I also don't understand the bit about people shouldn't move around the world to try and find a better life for themselves.

No, you don't understand the difference between a relatively small number of people moving around the world with the aim of settling in and contributing to various other countries, to the mass migration of hundreds of thousands of people all focused on gaining entry to one particular country simply because they've heard that its welfare system is the easiest to abuse (which itself is thanks to a worrying number of hopelessly idealistic, short-sighted people who also apparently failed to understand the difference as well).

> We've always done it, we're doing it now, teachers and nurses all flocking to Australia for a better life, yet this only matters to Foxache when they are trying to come here, although he does seem confused about this too.

There's no confusion, you're just comparing apples and oranges. See point above.

J1234 18 Mar 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

You still at it? Carry on
Post edited at 13:46
 krikoman 18 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:
>...., just as trying to compare prehistoric human migration to the situation in Calais is absurd.


And your blanket judgements about all the people in Calais and a whole raft of other refugees is perfectly sound.
2
 MG 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> When do the blameless become valid, for our help?
> How do you blame some without any power to change their lives for the situation they are in?

You seem obsessed with blame! It's not about that. It's about how we maximise what we can do given the constraints I outlined above.

> I also don't understand the bit about people shouldn't move around the world to try and find a better life for themselves. We've always done it, we're doing it now, teachers and nurses all flocking to Australia for a better life, yet this only matters to Foxache when they are trying to come here, although he does seem confused about this too.

If huge numbers move from poor, under-educated areas of the world to richer better educated areas it is destabilising. Teachers moving to Australia in a controlled way that benefits all concerned is not comparable.
 Foxache 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> And your blanket judgements about all the people in Calais and a whole raft of other refugees is perfectly sound.

This entire thread is about the people in Calais, so none of what has been said applies to 'a whole raft of other refugees' or indeed any refugees at all, seeing as economic migrants are not refugees.

At least my blanket judgment is based on rational thought and evidence. Your blanket judgment seems to have no basis other than it's just what you'd prefer to believe. As I keep saying, there's no reasonable explanation for why any genuine refugee would travel through no less than 9 safe countries, making an unnecessary journey of thousands of extra miles, refusing asylum in a nice, safe country like France, and instead set up an illegal slum which doubles as a staging ground for repeated attempts at illegal entry to the UK. None of that makes any sense whatsoever if your concern is simply the safety of you and your family. In fact it's amongst the most insane, convoluted and unnecessarily dangerous courses of action you could take short of cramming your family into a rowing boat and heading for Antarctica to start a new life there.
You've yet to provide any reasonable explanation to suggest otherwise and repeated insistence that they definitely are all genuine refugees, just because you think they are, doesn't count.
Post edited at 17:38
 krikoman 18 Mar 2016
In reply to MG:


> If huge numbers move from poor, under-educated areas of the world to richer better educated areas it is destabilising. Teachers moving to Australia in a controlled way that benefits all concerned is not comparable.

How does our nurses and teacher leaving Britain benefit us?
1
 MG 18 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

All right probably not us. The point is the comparison is facile.
 Bob Hughes 19 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:
I don't buy the argument that just because someone has a preference to seek asylum in one country over another, they are necessarily:
A) out to "rinse" that country for whatever they can
B) an economic migrant
C) have an unjustified sense of "entitlement"

No doubt, some of the people in Calais will be cynical scroungers, but others will be ordinary people escaping from war zones. Some, about 450 according to an article I read this morning, are unaccompanied minors. One was a boy of 15 whose house was bombed in Afghanistan, killing his father, and who had made a 1 year trip overland to Calais. It seems a bit of a leap to assume that, following such a trauma, someone's inability to follow the logic we imagine we would do, from our comfortable armchairs, let alone follow to the letter an opaque asylum procedure, means that person is necessarily on the take.

According to the logic, if these exact same people had got on a plane and flown from Damascus, or Kabul, or Baghdad to London, they would be genuine asylum seekers. But, since they escaped on foot or in the boot of a car and - for whatever reason - chose to head overland to England then they must automatically be cynical takers, just doesn't make any sense to me.

There are many reasons why someone might want to apply for asylum in the UK; maybe because they speak some English, maybe they have relatives in the UK (minors can apply to have their asylum application transferred to the UK if they have family there), or maybe because they heard that the UK has streets paved with gold, that you can find a job more easily in the uk. None of these things are necessarily bad things.

The logic for the asylum process is to help people who have suffered desperately and cannot return to where they were born. This applies just as much to someone who entered Europe in the boot of a car as it does to someone who got on a plane. And having a preference for seeking asylum in one country over another seems to me to be irrelevant to that.

Edited to fix a typo
Post edited at 09:01
3
 krikoman 20 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Have a like
2
 Foxache 21 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

None of that alters the fact that these people aren't refugees because they're in France, and France is a safe country offering them asylum. Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium are all safe countries that they've already either deliberately bypassed or refused asylum in.

They're migrants and they're in Calais because they choose to be in Calais. The 15 year old boy's story is tragic, but nobody is forcing him to stay in Calais and whether or not he believes the UK's streets to be paved with gold is irrelevant to his entitlement to live here. It's also irrelevant to whether or not allowing everyone who wants to live here to do so would be a sustainable long-term solution.
Unfortunately we can't all have whatever we want. That's life. David Martin (who posted earlier) and the doubtless hundreds of thousands like him every year who have to settle for their second or third choice of country don't start violently protesting and/or trying to emotionally blackmail their way in to their preferred country, they accept it, take what they can get and are grateful for it. You could understand the behaviour of the Calais migrants if they'd been chased across Europe, running for their lives the whole way, and were now backed into a corner with the French closing in to slaughter them, incarcerate them or deport them back to Syria, but that couldn't be further from what's actually going on.

In reply to Foxache:

If most of northern Europe (except Norway) was disintegrating into a civil war (not as a result of any government decision but let us call them Anarchists R Us). Where would you try to escape to?

Me - I'd try to get to N or S America or Australia, because I have friends that would look after/hide me there. Sod the law, I'm trying to protect mine and my family's lives.

 Foxache 21 Mar 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:

> If most of northern Europe (except Norway) was disintegrating into a civil war (not as a result of any government decision but let us call them Anarchists R Us). Where would you try to escape to?

> Me - I'd try to get to N or S America or Australia, because I have friends that would look after/hide me there. Sod the law, I'm trying to protect mine and my family's lives.

Well unless you're saying that the civil war in Syria is going to drag all of the surrounding countries and a large part of central Europe into it, I don't see the relevance to the hypothetical scenario you described.

In reply to Foxache:

I'll just leave them to find a refuge in the Middle East then and wash my hands of the whole saga.
 krikoman 21 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> None of that alters the fact that these people aren't refugees because they're in France, and France is a safe country offering them asylum. Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium are all safe countries that they've already either deliberately bypassed or refused asylum in.

Well, as long as you say it I suppose it's true, but then there's those horrible facts that keep getting in the way. Under international law a person doesn't have to claim asylum in the first country they escape to, much as it's convenient for a lot of people at what this to be the case, it isn't.

4
 krikoman 21 Mar 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:

> I'll just leave them to find a refuge in the Middle East then and wash my hands of the whole saga.

You and a great many others.
2
In reply to krikoman:
Just to make my views clearer.

I'm no advocate of free open borders (yet) but will try my best to support those in need in the best way I can.
Post edited at 13:11
 Foxache 21 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Well, as long as you say it I suppose it's true, but then there's those horrible facts that keep getting in the way. Under international law a person doesn't have to claim asylum in the first country they escape to, much as it's convenient for a lot of people at what this to be the case, it isn't.

What horrible facts would those be then? All you seem to have done so far is put up a dozen straw men to knock down and conveniently ignore any points others have made that don't support your position.
 Bob Hughes 21 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> None of that alters the fact that these people aren't refugees because they're in France, and France is a safe country offering them asylum.

The people among them who cannot return to the country of their nationality because they have a legitimate fear of persecution are refugees. The country they are currently in, how they got there or which countries they passed through to get there don't change that.

There is a confusion here between an obligation on the person seeking asylum - which doesn't exist in international law - and the general first country principle (an obligation on countries neighbouring war zones to accept refugees), as well as, perhaps, the Dublin Amendment (which says that, in the absence of of factors (like for example family members being present in a given country) asylum seekers will be processed in the first EU country they entered).

You could, if you wanted, argue that all refugees may only apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in but that would be a much harsher stance than pretty much anyone is taking in the world today. It would mean, for example, that anyone arriving in Europe overland from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea would automatically be rejected.

> It's also irrelevant to whether or not allowing everyone who wants to live here to do so would be a sustainable long-term solution.

For the record, i think setting an annual limit on the number of refugees seeking asylum is (unfortunately) the only practical approach. I happen to think that limit could be a lot higher than it is in the case of the UK but that is a slightly different argument. I also think we could alleviate some of the problems in Calais by processing asylum claims in international centres around the world, the same way we do with Visas.



 TobyA 21 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium are all safe countries

They're not. Greece was, in 2011, suspended from the Dublin agreement because of its asylum "system" failing to protect the basic human rights of refugees according to the ECHR - it was deemed unsafe to send refugees back there. I don't know, but is Albania considered safe? I know they took some Uigur Guantanamo releasees for the Americans, but I don't know if it is considered safe under refugee law.

Anyway, isn't the whole thing about safe countries only under EU regulations (Dublin II and III IIRC), not an idea contained within the original international law on refugees?
 krikoman 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> What horrible facts would those be then?

This one, for starters, the one that was in my post!

Under international law a person doesn't have to claim asylum in the first country they escape to, much as it's convenient for a lot of people at what this to be the case, it isn't.

1
 Foxache 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> The people among them who cannot return to the country of their nationality because they have a legitimate fear of persecution are refugees. The country they are currently in, how they got there or which countries they passed through to get there don't change that.

Agreed, but all of the evidence I've seen and heard strongly suggests that, amongst the group in Calais, these are very much in the minority. Their behaviour reinforces this further; it is totally at odds with that of someone whose primary concern is finding a safe country.

> You could, if you wanted, argue that all refugees may only apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in but that would be a much harsher stance than pretty much anyone is taking in the world today. It would mean, for example, that anyone arriving in Europe overland from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea would automatically be rejected.

Again, I agree. But in this case we're not talking about neighbouring countries or even a few countries over, we're talking the other side of the continent.

> For the record, i think setting an annual limit on the number of refugees seeking asylum is (unfortunately) the only practical approach. I happen to think that limit could be a lot higher than it is in the case of the UK but that is a slightly different argument.

An annual limit is critical in my opinion, for many reasons that could probably spawn a whole separate thread. I certainly wouldn't say it's any more unfortunate than other, similar matters of practicality.

 Foxache 22 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> This one, for starters, the one that was in my post!

> Under international law a person doesn't have to claim asylum in the first country they escape to, much as it's convenient for a lot of people at what this to be the case, it isn't.

So what about the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth countries they get to?!

It's hardly a horrible or damning fact to fall back on saying "well it isn't illegal"! Just because it's not prohibited by international law doesn't mean it's rational, reasonable, logical and/or in keeping with the behaviour of someone whose primary concern is their safety.
 Bob Hughes 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Foxache:

> Agreed, but all of the evidence I've seen and heard strongly suggests that, amongst the group in Calais, these are very much in the minority. Their behaviour reinforces this further; it is totally at odds with that of someone whose primary concern is finding a safe country.

But it is not at odds with someone whose primary concern is finding a safe country and whose secondary concern is finding a country where they might at least find work and speak the language. You seem to find it hard to accept that people who fear for their lives might also entertain hopes of having a job and supporting their family financially.


1
Jim C 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> But it is not at odds with someone whose primary concern is finding a safe country and whose secondary concern is finding a country where they might at least find work and speak the language. You seem to find it hard to accept that people who fear for their lives might also entertain hopes of having a job and supporting their family financially.

Putting myself in the position of being a refugee fleeing for my life, I am fairly certain that by now there are NO genuine refugees left in Calais(If there ever were any)
 Bob Hughes 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Putting myself in the position of being a refugee fleeing for my life, I am fairly certain that by now there are NO genuine refugees left in Calais(If there ever were any)

From The UNHCR:

"What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant?

Refugees are forced to flee because of a threat of persecution and because they lack the protection of their own country.

A migrant, in comparison, may leave his or her country for many reasons that are not related to persecution, such as for the purposes of employment, family reunification or study. A migrant continues to enjoy the protection of his or her own government, even when abroad."

In your considered estimation, how many people living in the camps in Calais continue to enjoy the protection of their own government ?


1
 Jim Hamilton 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> A migrant continues to enjoy the protection of his or her own government, even when abroad."

I wonder how many countries would actually continue to offer their nationals such £protection£ if they had illegally entered another country.
Post edited at 13:16
1
 Bob Hughes 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> I wonder how many countries would actually continue to offer their nationals such £protection£ if they had illegally entered another country.

I can't think of any countries which rescind nationality - or which would even prosecute you - for entering a different country illegally. There are some - Cuba, North Korea - which will forbid you to leave.







1
 RomTheBear 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Putting myself in the position of being a refugee fleeing for my life, I am fairly certain that by now there are NO genuine refugees left in Calais(If there ever were any)

If you were a 16 year old who had fled bombing and persecution Syria, wouldn't you try to join your family members in the UK by whatever means ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35366425

Those who end up in Calais are a mix of many different situations, let's not put everybody in the same basket.
Post edited at 14:26
1
 Jim Hamilton 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> I can't think of any countries which rescind nationality - or which would even prosecute you - for entering a different country illegally. There are some - Cuba, North Korea - which will forbid you to leave.

but there must be many who would have no interest in the return of their nationals (especially with no paperwork), or make it difficult for them to be returned.
 Bob Hughes 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

i don't know - can you name any ?

1
 Jim Hamilton 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Any non "first world" country?
Jim C 22 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Rom, these people are trying to get into a country illegally. They are not entitled to come, they are not wanted, and the more they insist in trying to get in ilegally the quicker they should be thrown out should they succeed.

As for your bleeding heart stories , you are just making things to justify the unjustifiable.
Jim C 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> From The UNHCR:

> In your considered estimation, how many people living in the camps in Calais continue to enjoy the protection of their own government ?

If they would register and tell us who they were, we might be able to answer that.

Edit( Why Britain)
"According to the Mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, and members of the French Senate, migrants perceive the UK to be a better destination than France because the British welfare state will give everyone £36 a week.
Ms Bouchart said migrants think the UK is an "El Dorado" of highly paid work and easy benefits.
The French politicians also blame the under-regulated labour market where migrants can easily find cash-in-hand jobs.
In addition, they said there is no system of identity cards so migrants believe they cannot easily be tracked down and deported."
Post edited at 18:46
 Big Ger 22 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Those who end up in Calais are a mix of many different situations, let's not put everybody in the same basket.


Indeed

Robah, 19, from Ethiopia says he wants to study in the UK, which he says is a "good place to be a student". Diafu, 21, from Ethiopia, also thinks he will be able to study in Britain. Diafu is angry at Britain's efforts to keep migrants out

Sipping sugary tea boiled on a stove in a hut he helped to build, he says England is his "dream country", adding: "I will try until I cross." Wiel, also from Sudan, says the existence of the Jungle camp has shown him France is not the place where he wants to live. "England is not France. There is no Jungle in England," he says.

Ibrahim, 26, from Sudan, also believes better opportunities await across the Channel. "In England you get a big house," he says.

"France is no good," says Robah. "In France there is no home and you spend months sleeping in the streets. It's different in England. They give you a house then you can wait while you get documents. "In England they give you documents after three months but in France you wait much longer."

Mohammad, 27, says Britain is a "good country". "Everyone likes it," he says. He says he has been to Britain once - in 2004 - but was deported to Iraq. All he is sure of is that he prefers Britain to France.

Mohamed, 43, has a wife and six children in his country, Egypt, and he believes if he reaches the UK they will be allowed to join him.

"There is a man I love so much - David Beckham," says Alpha, a Mauritanian carpenter who has built a thatched house in the Jungle camp. "Even my house is called David Beckham House."

Post edited at 20:24
 RomTheBear 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Rom, these people are trying to get into a country illegally. They are not entitled to come, they are not wanted, and the more they insist in trying to get in ilegally the quicker they should be thrown out should they succeed.

> As for your bleeding heart stories , you are just making things to justify the unjustifiable.

You claimed that none of the people in Calais are refugees, I've shown you a clear example of the opposite.

Now if you think the BBC story I linked to is a made up bleeding heart story I'm afraid your paranoia (or ignorance) is beyond help.

You just paint everybody with the same brush without any distinction. It's ignorant, simplistic, and lazy.
Post edited at 21:58
2
Jim C 22 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Are they legally registered as refugees ?
No, then they are not refugees.

From the link
"EU rules-Under European rules, known as Dublin III, asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first country they reach. Those who have a relative living legally in another European country do have a legal entitlement to then apply to seek asylum there, but ONLY if they have already been processed by the first country."

Post edited at 22:28
 RomTheBear 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Are they legally registered as refugees ?

> No, then they are not refugees.

That is not what refugees means.

"A refugee, according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees[1][2] is a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country
"
According to the BBC article :

"All four had fled the Syrian civil war, saying they had witnessed traumatic events including bombings and death. Two of them were detained and tortured by the Syrian government."

So yes they are refugees. Plus they did make an asylum claim in France.

My point here is simply that your claims that none in Calais are refugees is quite easy to prove wrong.
There is a mix of people there. Refugees in legal limbo trying to reach families, delusional economic migrants, others with mental problems... It's a mixed picture so let's stop painting everybody with the same brush.
1
 krikoman 22 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Indeed

> Robah, 19, from Ethiopia says he wants to study in the UK, which he says is a "good place to be a student". Diafu, 21, from Ethiopia, also thinks he will be able to study in Britain. Diafu is angry at Britain's efforts to keep migrants out .....

I'm not sure I understand you post, are you saying the because this is what people are saying, they can't be refugees?

Ethiopia and Sudan both are conscripting forced recruitment of young men into their armies with no term, sort of an open ended stint.

"Eritrea denies committing human rights abuses and says those leaving the country are economic migrants".

If they don't join many are killed of threats made on their families.

It's obvious to us that it's not going to be what they are expecting or that their ideas are somewhat fanciful, but does that ensure that they aren't refugees?

2
 Big Ger 22 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Rom said:

> Those who end up in Calais are a mix of many different situations, let's not put everybody in the same basket.

So I gave examples of "other baskets", including wanting a free"Big House", seeing the UK as an easier way of getting residency, or for the love of David Beckham.

Jim C 23 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


.. Plus they did make an asylum claim in France...

And was France the first safe country they reached sanctuary in?
( If it is, my geography is confused)
 RomTheBear 23 Mar 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> .. Plus they did make an asylum claim in France...

> And was France the first safe country they reached sanctuary in?

> ( If it is, my geography is confused)

It doesn't say in the article where else they may have tried to claim asylum, but anyway I'm not sure how that changes the facts that there are indeed refugees in Calais, amongst other groups.
Post edited at 08:17
 summo 23 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It doesn't say in the article where else they may have tried to claim asylum, but anyway I'm not sure how that changes the facts that there are indeed refugees in Calais,

because they deliberately avoided claiming asylum in many safe countries en route, if fleeing to safety was their initial goal, on reaching Europe or the EU, their goal changed?

 RomTheBear 23 Mar 2016
In reply to summo:
> because they deliberately avoided claiming asylum in many safe countries en route, if fleeing to safety was their initial goal, on reaching Europe or the EU, their goal changed?

Where and when people claim asylum does not relate to whether they are refugees or not.
You could argue that indeed they could have claimed asylum en route - which it seems they did in this case, that doesn't change the fact that claiming that there are no refugees in Calais is just plain false, as there are many example of the contrary.
There is everything there, it's the tail end of a wider migration crisis and it concentrates all sorts of people with various unusual situations.
Post edited at 08:35
 Big Ger 23 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> French Prime Minister Manuel Valls says it is now imperative to tighten controls on the European Union's borders after the bombings in Brussels. "There is an urgent need to strengthen the external borders of the European Union," Mr Valls told French radio, adding that heightened vigilance was required to stop people crossing into Europe with false passports, as the group know as Islamic State has "stolen a large number of passports in Syria".

Good idea. We should close ours.
2
 Sir Chasm 23 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Good idea. We should close ours.

It's a long way to Australia.
 krikoman 23 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Rom said:

> So I gave examples of "other baskets", including wanting a free"Big House", seeing the UK as an easier way of getting residency, or for the love of David Beckham.

But this doesn't prove they aren't refugees, does it? They can still be refugees and think what ever they like.

They might think the yellow blocks in the piss troughs turn to gold when you piss on them, which is why everyone in the UK is rich and drives around in Rolls Royce's, this still doesn't mean they can't be refugees too!
1
 RomTheBear 23 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> Good idea. We should close ours.

It was never open as far as I am aware ? (At the exception of NI/RoI)
Post edited at 11:31
 Big Ger 23 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> But this doesn't prove they aren't refugees, does it?

Never said it did.
 Big Ger 23 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It was never open as far as I am aware ? (At the exception of NI/RoI)

Fair comment, we should tighten them.
 krikoman 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Never said it did.

Then what's the point of your post?
3
 Andy Morley 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you were a 16 year old who had fled bombing and persecution Syria, wouldn't you try to join your family members in the UK by whatever means ?

If I were a Syrian, on the move through Europe, I might well do pretty much the same sort of things as the people currently in 'The Jungle'. But the fact is that I'm not. You could probably apply similar arguments to the Vikings, to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes before them and many other historical examples of mass migrations. I don't think any of that justifies our opening up our borders and saying 'Oh, alright then'.
 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
> If I were a Syrian, on the move through Europe, I might well do pretty much the same sort of things as the people currently in 'The Jungle'. But the fact is that I'm not. You could probably apply similar arguments to the Vikings, to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes before them and many other historical examples of mass migrations. I don't think any of that justifies our opening up our borders and saying 'Oh, alright then'.

Comparing refugees fleeing war and persecution to the Vikings is just plain dumb.
I can't see any argument as to why anybody should close their doors to anybody else genuinely seeking refuge from war or persecution, even more so when they are children.
Post edited at 12:30
3
 Andy Morley 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Comparing refugees fleeing war and persecution to the Vikings is just plain dumb.

You should take some time to read up on the Vikings. They weren't all bands of warriors on a 'rape, pillage and burn' mission. There was a complex mix of socio-economic pressures that led to people effectively getting pushed out of Scandinavia, and there's a certain amount of evidence that some Viking parties were settlers who brought women and even livestock with them. Conversely, if you took a cross-section of people in 'The Jungle' you might find that not as many of those people as you might assume come from Syria, and that a disproportionate number were young, single males.
Jim C 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Comparing refugees fleeing war and persecution to the Vikings is just plain dumb.

> I can't see any argument as to why anybody should close their doors to anybody else genuinely seeking refuge from war or persecution, even more so when they are children.

Whilst I can't see a link to the vikings either, there is no need to say that is "just plain dumb."

I for one am not at all anti-refugee, and am certainly not advocating a closed doors policy, but I want them to follow the rules set out, and not try and jump queues, or demand preferences of their host country.

Economic migrants , should be strickly vetted controlled, and ONLY those that meet the counries needs without being an undue burden on housing , Health Service etc. should be allowed in. (on our terms)

 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> You should take some time to read up on the Vikings. They weren't all bands of warriors on a 'rape, pillage and burn' mission. There was a complex mix of socio-economic pressures that led to people effectively getting pushed out of Scandinavia, and there's a certain amount of evidence that some Viking parties were settlers who brought women and even livestock with them.

Regardless I am not sure what is the point or how this is comparable ?

> Conversely, if you took a cross-section of people in 'The Jungle' you might find that not as many of those people as you might assume come from Syria, and that a disproportionate number were young, single males.

But it wasn't the point, you replied to me in relation to the case of a 16 year old who fled persecution and bombing in Syria, and ended up in the jungle trying to reach family members in the uk.
 Andy Morley 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But it wasn't the point, you replied to me in relation to the case of a 16 year old who fled persecution and bombing in Syria, and ended up in the jungle trying to reach family members in the uk.

Absolutely. Everybody has their reasons as someone somewhere once said - everybody is the hero of their own story. From their own perspective, most of the people living in 'The Jungle' are probably doing very little different from what any of us might do if we were in their situation. But we're not, and whether we want to or not, it's logistically impossible for the UK or any other country to 'rescue' all of the distressed and suffering people of this earth. And ultimately, there's no rescue for any of us, rich comfortable Europeans included. No-one gets out of here alive when all's said and done. Meanwhile, we need to make sure that we don't import the chaos that's afflicting some other parts of the world, otherwise the lessons of history that we will need to consider will be less the Vikings and more the fall of the Roman Empire!
1
 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> Absolutely. Everybody has their reasons as someone somewhere once said - everybody is the hero of their own story. From their own perspective, most of the people living in 'The Jungle' are probably doing very little different from what any of us might do if we were in their situation.

> But we're not, and whether we want to or not, it's logistically impossible for the UK or any other country to 'rescue' all of the distressed and suffering people of this earth.

I am not sure where you've seen anyone asking us to rescue all of the distressed and suffering people in the world. You're just making things up.
1
 Andy Morley 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I am not sure where you've seen anyone asking us to rescue all of the distressed and suffering people in the world. You're just making things up.

To be fair, the international situation is about a bit more than just what you personally may have said or asked in this forum.
 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
> To be fair, the international situation is about a bit more than just what you personally may have said or asked in this forum.

And to be fair you are just stating the bleeding obvious by saying that the UK cannot rescue all of the distressed and suffering people in the world, nobody ever said otherwise or argued we should do so, so I am not sure what is your point with this or how it even relates to the "international situation".
Post edited at 19:40
 Andy Morley 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> And to be fair you are just stating the bleeding obvious by saying that the UK cannot rescue all of the distressed and suffering people in the world, nobody ever said otherwise or argued we should do so, so I am not sure what is your point with this or how it even relates to the "international situation".

I think some of the people in Calais would quite like it if we let them all in.
1
 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

> I think some of the people in Calais would quite like it if we let them all in.

You indeed have a talent for stating the obvious but what's your point ?
2
 Big Ger 24 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Then what's the point of your post?

The same point as I made above.
 Big Ger 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
> Conversely, if you took a cross-section of people in 'The Jungle' you might find that not as many of those people as you might assume come from Syria, and that a disproportionate number were young, single males.

The Jungle is home to approximately 3,000 migrants, many of whom are seeking asylum from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan, roughly 150 are Syrian refugees.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/calais-migrant-cam...
Post edited at 22:13
 Big Ger 24 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> And to be fair you are just stating the bleeding obvious by saying that the UK cannot rescue all of the distressed and suffering people in the world, nobody ever said otherwise or argued we should do so, so I am not sure what is your point with this or how it even relates to the "international situation".

How many can or should we "rescue" then Rom?
 RomTheBear 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> How many can or should we "rescue" then Rom?

I don't think there is a need to have either a lower or an upper limit. We have to look at every asylum case we receive on a case by case basis.
Post edited at 22:18
 krikoman 24 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> The Jungle is home to approximately 3,000 migrants, many of whom are seeking asylum from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan, roughly 150 are Syrian refugees.

Of course there's no need to be fleeing any other those countries, due to persecution or any other threat to life, are there?
2
 Big Ger 24 Mar 2016
In reply to krikoman:
Oh god, you really seem to struggle with basic logic here.

Let me explain.

If some asks; "what does A equal"?

And someone answer, rightly; "A equals 2"

Then the answer they have given is right; "A equals 2"

For you to come along and say, "Well you've not proved that A equals a banana!" is meaningless and trite.
Post edited at 23:17
 Big Ger 25 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don't think there is a need to have either a lower or an upper limit. We have to look at every asylum case we receive on a case by case basis.

No disagreement from me on that mate.

However, do you not believe that there would come a time, when demand outstrips capacity, so to speak?
 RomTheBear 25 Mar 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> No disagreement from me on that mate.

> However, do you not believe that there would come a time, when demand outstrips capacity, so to speak?

It doesn't seen likely to ever happen unless there is WW3.
We don't get many applications in the first place.
Post edited at 06:55
1
 Andy Morley 25 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It doesn't seen likely to ever happen unless there is WW3.

What makes you think that we're not engaged in WW3 already?
 RomTheBear 25 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
> What makes you think that we're not engaged in WW3 already?

If depends how you define it. Anyway it doesn't really matter, the point remains that we don't get so many asylum applications, not nearly enough to even start to worry about upper limits at this point.
Post edited at 10:00
2
 Andy Morley 25 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If depends how you define it. Anyway it doesn't really matter, the point remains that we don't get so many asylum applications, not nearly enough to even start to worry about upper limits at this point.

You and some others here use the word 'point' an awful lot. OK, so we all have agendas, but in the sense that you've used 'point' earlier, it makes me wonder if you, and maybe a lot of other people too have some point to prove on the back of this migrant question? Putting it differently, when you talk about 'the point remains that we don't get so many asylum applications', that is a matter of detail that none of us here that I'm aware of has the opportunity to influence. We can influence overall policy (rather than the detail of how it's implemented) through our votes, but to do that I'm suggesting (call that a 'point' if you must) that we need to learn some lessons from history, from past wars, from past invasions, from past migrations. As you say, it depends how you define those things, but 'war', 'invasion' and 'migration' are all changing in their nature in this new world, and so maybe the definitions need to change too.
 RomTheBear 26 Mar 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:
My "point" is that there seems to be a certain paranoia from some of the posters here about the numbers of refugees coming to the uk.

"We can't rescue the whole world", "how many should we rescue" etc etc...

You are talking about the lessons of the past, well the lesson of the past is that we took in ten times many more people in the past when the country was in ruins, and actually we and they did quite well.

But now that we are a lot richer and a lot better off we worry about a few thousand asylum applications per year ? Why all this paranoia ?
Post edited at 07:38
 off-duty 26 Mar 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You must accept we need some process and some border control though?
Merkel tried just opening the borders - that didn't last long.
 RomTheBear 26 Mar 2016
In reply to off-duty:
> You must accept we need some process and some border control though?

have i ever said otherwise ?

> Merkel tried just opening the borders - that didn't last long.

The borders were already largely open (schengen) all she did really was to make a commitment to resettle a large number of refugees, it may have been unpopular but overall think it was the right thing to do.

Sure people and especially the far right will focus on the problems a large movement of population inevitably bring, but the overall picture is that almost half a million people are now safe.

Poorer and smaller countries like Jordan or Lebanon have taken one and half million each...
Turkey has almost 3 millions...

Nobody is saying that we should accept all economic migrants and so on, but when it comes to refugees of war I do think we could resettle a lot more than we currently do.
Post edited at 08:03

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...