This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Each member state has its own agenda driven by their own domestic politics.
Not long before you (we since I now live here and am soon to become naturalised British) have to deal with immigration directly as oppossed to indirectly. I am only aware of my own country's agenda... not sure about how the other 25 states wish to give you (us) the finger.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37469013
Not long before you (we since I now live here and am soon to become naturalised British) have to deal with immigration directly as oppossed to indirectly. I am only aware of my own country's agenda... not sure about how the other 25 states wish to give you (us) the finger.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37469013
1
In reply to French Erick:
I think you've got this a bit backwards. For years the UK has allowed France to deal with it's problem and France are now saying it can't be all take and no give. If anything by expecting them to continue as things have been we're giving them the finger.
I think you've got this a bit backwards. For years the UK has allowed France to deal with it's problem and France are now saying it can't be all take and no give. If anything by expecting them to continue as things have been we're giving them the finger.
1
In reply to French Erick:
Apparently Mr Hollande sees the Calais Migrant crisis as a UK problem. I am having difficulty getting my head around that.
The French allowed them into France, so its a Franch problem. Seems simple enough to me. We didn't sneak around a different border and smuggle them all in from somewhere did we? In fact, we had no part in them arriving in France, how the hell can it be a UK problem?
French logic?
Apparently Mr Hollande sees the Calais Migrant crisis as a UK problem. I am having difficulty getting my head around that.
The French allowed them into France, so its a Franch problem. Seems simple enough to me. We didn't sneak around a different border and smuggle them all in from somewhere did we? In fact, we had no part in them arriving in France, how the hell can it be a UK problem?
French logic?
32
7
In reply to cragtaff:
Your post, funnily enough, is a perfect example for that "french logic".
The refugfee crisis is not a UK problem, or a French problem, or a Greek problem. It is a global problem to be resolved by all countries together.
Your head in the sand solution is to shut the doors and say "it's France's problem". By the same moral standards, France could put the head in the sand, shut the doors, and say "it's Germany's problem". Germany does the same and "is the Czech's problem". Hungary, Slovenia, Bosnia, Greece and Turkey follow suit, and what do we end up with?
A wall built around Syria and every other country torn by war, civil unrest, religious loonies and/or extensive violations of the human rights of the population to ensure the people that got caught on it cannot escape?
Maybe we can even get the Syrians, Afghan or Somalis to pay for their respective walls as well...
Your post, funnily enough, is a perfect example for that "french logic".
The refugfee crisis is not a UK problem, or a French problem, or a Greek problem. It is a global problem to be resolved by all countries together.
Your head in the sand solution is to shut the doors and say "it's France's problem". By the same moral standards, France could put the head in the sand, shut the doors, and say "it's Germany's problem". Germany does the same and "is the Czech's problem". Hungary, Slovenia, Bosnia, Greece and Turkey follow suit, and what do we end up with?
A wall built around Syria and every other country torn by war, civil unrest, religious loonies and/or extensive violations of the human rights of the population to ensure the people that got caught on it cannot escape?
Maybe we can even get the Syrians, Afghan or Somalis to pay for their respective walls as well...
Post edited at 14:28
51
6
In reply to cragtaff:
I imagine Mr Hollande is pissed off with us not pulling our weight in dealing with the refugee crisis caused by our jingoistic bombing of Syria.
I imagine Mr Hollande is pissed off with us not pulling our weight in dealing with the refugee crisis caused by our jingoistic bombing of Syria.
21
15
5
4
In reply to RyanOsborne:
??? You do know that France had aircraft and a carrier " bombing" Syra before the UK>
??? You do know that France had aircraft and a carrier " bombing" Syra before the UK>
14
In reply to neilh:
Yeah, of course, and they're also dealing with twice as many refugees as us, what's your point?
Yeah, of course, and they're also dealing with twice as many refugees as us, what's your point?
4
9
In reply to RyanOsborne:
You need to be chronically ignorant of world events to hold a view like this.
> I imagine Mr Hollande is pissed off with us not pulling our weight in dealing with the refugee crisis caused by our jingoistic bombing of Syria.
You need to be chronically ignorant of world events to hold a view like this.
14
4
In reply to French Erick:
The reason for checks on the departure side of the channel are nothing to do with immigration.
You have people waiting for a boat/train who have nothing to do but when they land the other side they just want to continue their journey.
Sarkozy's suggestion would be an absolute nightmare to administer, it sounds like electioneering not realpolitik.
The French should be sending those people who are just illegal immigrants back to their entry to the EU or their home countries and offering asylum or returning to their entry point to the EU, the asylum seekers.
Why are they making it so complicated?
> Each member state has its own agenda driven by their own domestic politics.
The reason for checks on the departure side of the channel are nothing to do with immigration.
You have people waiting for a boat/train who have nothing to do but when they land the other side they just want to continue their journey.
Sarkozy's suggestion would be an absolute nightmare to administer, it sounds like electioneering not realpolitik.
The French should be sending those people who are just illegal immigrants back to their entry to the EU or their home countries and offering asylum or returning to their entry point to the EU, the asylum seekers.
Why are they making it so complicated?
7
2
2
6
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Yes we are, but instead of going for the knee-jerk 'simple and obvious' solution of offering residence to people who may/may not be genuine refugees we are spending millions providing shelter, food, education and medical aid in the middle east, That is where this mess will be solved, not in Europe, bringing these people to Europe just moves their problems here, it solves nothing.
Yes we are, but instead of going for the knee-jerk 'simple and obvious' solution of offering residence to people who may/may not be genuine refugees we are spending millions providing shelter, food, education and medical aid in the middle east, That is where this mess will be solved, not in Europe, bringing these people to Europe just moves their problems here, it solves nothing.
11
4
In reply to Scarab9:
All they need to do is stop the treaty of le Touquet (a bilateral agreement) and put the UK border back on UK soil then ignore anyone trying to get into the UK illegally. Then it becomes a UK problem. It was only a question of time before this would come up. People in the Calais area are thinking along the lines of "if they really want to get there, let them". Everyone is the same regardless of their nationality and applies the not in my backyard policy. Brexit annoyed the French, the French no longer want to scratch the UK back (sure there is plenty mutual back scratching)...or at least the obvious emotive backscratching.
Anyways, dealing with or refusing to deal with refugees is not going to stop people from fleeing civil war areas and poor areas. Everybody wants a better life. Migration of people is the thing we need to understand and deal with in the 21st century because it's not going to stop!
> I think you've got this a bit backwards. For years the UK has allowed France to deal with it's problem and France are now saying it can't be all take and no give. If anything by expecting them to continue as things have been we're giving them the finger.
All they need to do is stop the treaty of le Touquet (a bilateral agreement) and put the UK border back on UK soil then ignore anyone trying to get into the UK illegally. Then it becomes a UK problem. It was only a question of time before this would come up. People in the Calais area are thinking along the lines of "if they really want to get there, let them". Everyone is the same regardless of their nationality and applies the not in my backyard policy. Brexit annoyed the French, the French no longer want to scratch the UK back (sure there is plenty mutual back scratching)...or at least the obvious emotive backscratching.
Anyways, dealing with or refusing to deal with refugees is not going to stop people from fleeing civil war areas and poor areas. Everybody wants a better life. Migration of people is the thing we need to understand and deal with in the 21st century because it's not going to stop!
11
4
In reply to French Erick:
Everyone who voted for Brexit voted for this . It was well documented and shouldn't be a surprise. Perhaps we could send Boris ("My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it")
> All they need to do is stop the treaty of le Touquet (a bilateral agreement) and put the UK border back on UK soil then ignore anyone trying to get into the UK illegally. Then it becomes a UK problem. It was only a question of time before this would come up.
Everyone who voted for Brexit voted for this . It was well documented and shouldn't be a surprise. Perhaps we could send Boris ("My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it")
5
6
In reply to French Erick:
I must be missing the obvious here, but here goes ... (bearing in mind that there is no mention of removing UK border control from French soil in your original linked BBC piece.)
What difference is the French dismantling 'The Jungle' going to make to the residents gaining entry to the UK?
Surely they will just end up marauding around Calais with absolutely nowhere to live, the poor truck drivers will be harassed more than they already are, and they can't get on the ferries?
I must be missing the obvious here, but here goes ... (bearing in mind that there is no mention of removing UK border control from French soil in your original linked BBC piece.)
What difference is the French dismantling 'The Jungle' going to make to the residents gaining entry to the UK?
Surely they will just end up marauding around Calais with absolutely nowhere to live, the poor truck drivers will be harassed more than they already are, and they can't get on the ferries?
4
1
In reply to cragtaff:
If someone tries to sneak into your house from the neighbour's back garden, who is responsible for guarding your own door ? Surely it can't be your neighbour responsibility to stand guard in front of YOUR door, even more so when you decided to give the finger to your neighbour.
> The French allowed them into France, so its a Franch problem. Seems simple enough to me. We didn't sneak around a different border and smuggle them all in from somewhere did we? In fact, we had no part in them arriving in France, how the hell can it be a UK problem?
> French logic?
> French logic?
If someone tries to sneak into your house from the neighbour's back garden, who is responsible for guarding your own door ? Surely it can't be your neighbour responsibility to stand guard in front of YOUR door, even more so when you decided to give the finger to your neighbour.
11
6
7
In reply to neilh: yes, and standing back quietly doing nothing knowing that the burglars in your garden are not going to rob you, they are just using your garden to access next door, so turn a blind eye to it. Even worse, welcome them in and usher them through to next door, French style!
10
2
In reply to cragtaff:
That's what I'd do if my neighbour was a dick.
Wally
> yes, and standing back quietly doing nothing knowing that the burglars in your garden are not going to rob you, they are just using your garden to access next door, so turn a blind eye to it. Even worse, welcome them in and usher them through to next door, French style!
That's what I'd do if my neighbour was a dick.
Wally
12
8
In reply to French Erick:
The thing is though, the migrants have still got to get to Britain and that means them boarding a ferry. In the same way that airlines don't just let anybody on a plane unless they have the required travel documents, passport and visa, they wouldn't just be able to board a ferry. If they didn't have to do that they could all just buy ferry tickets and come here now anyway.
Furthermore, if it did actually become easier to get to Britain many more migrants would flood in to Calais which is the very reason the French signed the Le Touquet agreement in the first place.
The migrants are in France because it is part of the Schengen area. In the same way that we keep being told we can't have the benefits of the single market if we won't accept the costs (freedom of movement), the French must accept that they can't have the benefits of being in the Schengen area (increased levels of trade) without accepting the costs (thousands of migrants wandering around Europe at will).
We opted out of the Schengen area and paid a price for it (less trade) but retained the benefits of having borders.
To say we aren't accepting our responsibilty is also not true, we have spent millions helping to provide security around Calais and have spend more than the rest of Europe put together to house migrants in refugee camps close to Syria. If we weren't doing that there'd be even more of them hanging around in Calais.
This is a French problem and they need to deal with it. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed, would we allow thousands of people to hang around in squalid camps for years on end blighting the lives of the inhabitants of Dover? Its unthinkable that we would allow that situation to develop.
> All they need to do is stop the treaty of le Touquet (a bilateral agreement) and put the UK border back on UK soil then ignore anyone trying to get into the UK illegally. Then it becomes a UK problem. >
The thing is though, the migrants have still got to get to Britain and that means them boarding a ferry. In the same way that airlines don't just let anybody on a plane unless they have the required travel documents, passport and visa, they wouldn't just be able to board a ferry. If they didn't have to do that they could all just buy ferry tickets and come here now anyway.
Furthermore, if it did actually become easier to get to Britain many more migrants would flood in to Calais which is the very reason the French signed the Le Touquet agreement in the first place.
The migrants are in France because it is part of the Schengen area. In the same way that we keep being told we can't have the benefits of the single market if we won't accept the costs (freedom of movement), the French must accept that they can't have the benefits of being in the Schengen area (increased levels of trade) without accepting the costs (thousands of migrants wandering around Europe at will).
We opted out of the Schengen area and paid a price for it (less trade) but retained the benefits of having borders.
To say we aren't accepting our responsibilty is also not true, we have spent millions helping to provide security around Calais and have spend more than the rest of Europe put together to house migrants in refugee camps close to Syria. If we weren't doing that there'd be even more of them hanging around in Calais.
This is a French problem and they need to deal with it. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed, would we allow thousands of people to hang around in squalid camps for years on end blighting the lives of the inhabitants of Dover? Its unthinkable that we would allow that situation to develop.
20
2
In reply to pec:
Airlines don't let anybody on a plane without travel documents because they are required under EU law to pay fines and costs and arrange the travel back if the passenger has to be sent back. It doesn't apply to people seeking asylum, in theory, but in practice they don't take the risk.
In terms of Calais though, if the border moves back to England, then theoretically anybody can get a boat, fill it up with asylum seekers, sail towards the UK, and then wait to get picked up by the UK coast guards.
Yes, it's amazing how much money we are prepared to pay to keep people living indefinitely in camps, instead of trying to resettle them somewhere safe.
> The thing is though, the migrants have still got to get to Britain and that means them boarding a ferry. In the same way that airlines don't just let anybody on a plane unless they have the required travel documents, passport and visa, they wouldn't just be able to board a ferry. If they didn't have to do that they could all just buy ferry tickets and come here now anyway.
Airlines don't let anybody on a plane without travel documents because they are required under EU law to pay fines and costs and arrange the travel back if the passenger has to be sent back. It doesn't apply to people seeking asylum, in theory, but in practice they don't take the risk.
In terms of Calais though, if the border moves back to England, then theoretically anybody can get a boat, fill it up with asylum seekers, sail towards the UK, and then wait to get picked up by the UK coast guards.
> To say we aren't accepting our responsibility is also not true, we have spent millions helping to provide security around Calais and have spend more than the rest of Europe put together to house migrants in refugee camps close to Syria. If we weren't doing that there'd be even more of them hanging around in Calais.
Yes, it's amazing how much money we are prepared to pay to keep people living indefinitely in camps, instead of trying to resettle them somewhere safe.
Post edited at 00:04
7
10
In reply to RomTheBear:
That's a sensible rule.
Which would mean we would be able to weed out the non-genuine asylum seekers.
Why should we be resettling people who are in a safe country?
> Airlines don't let anybody on a plane without travel documents because they are required under EU law to pay fines and costs and arrange the travel back if the passenger has to be sent back. It doesn't apply to people seeking asylum, in theory, but in practice they don't take the risk.
That's a sensible rule.
> In terms of Calais though, if the border moves back to England, then theoretically anybody can get a boat, fill it up with asylum seekers, sail towards the UK, and then wait to get picked up by the UK coast guards.
Which would mean we would be able to weed out the non-genuine asylum seekers.
> Yes, it's amazing how much money we are prepared to pay to keep people living indefinitely in camps, instead of trying to resettle them somewhere safe.
Why should we be resettling people who are in a safe country?
13
2
In reply to cragtaff:
>how the hell can it be a UK problem?
I imagine if the French stop helping us police the border we'll rapidly find out how it can become a UK problem.
Meaning by 'it' of course the desire of a handful of people to join families and/or build lives here, and our desperate desire to stop them.
jcm
>how the hell can it be a UK problem?
I imagine if the French stop helping us police the border we'll rapidly find out how it can become a UK problem.
Meaning by 'it' of course the desire of a handful of people to join families and/or build lives here, and our desperate desire to stop them.
jcm
7
10
In reply to French Erick:
Where Britain leads....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-referendum-britain...
Where Britain leads....
> Nearly all the EU’s member states could follow Britain’s lead and vote to leave the union, the French MP in charge of European affairs in Francois Hollande’s party has warned. Philip Cordery said there was a widespread perception across the continent that the EU was moving in the wrong direction and that populism and euroscepticism were growing everywhere.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-referendum-britain...
1
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
I'd say it is amazing the risk people are prepared to take to avoid living in mainland Europe, where there is also an asylum system and they are already safe. All for some dream they've been sold by traffickers or seen online.
You miss the fact they aren't forced to live in the Jungle, they aren't forced to come to the UK. They could if they chose to walk into any police station and claim asylum, in France, Austria, Spain, Italy, Greece etc... they'll have passed a fair few before deciding to live in squalor in between jumping at lorries or trains in Calais. The EU asylum system and general handling of it over the previous few years is a farce.
> Yes, it's amazing how much money we are prepared to pay to keep people living indefinitely in camps, instead of trying to resettle them somewhere safe.
I'd say it is amazing the risk people are prepared to take to avoid living in mainland Europe, where there is also an asylum system and they are already safe. All for some dream they've been sold by traffickers or seen online.
You miss the fact they aren't forced to live in the Jungle, they aren't forced to come to the UK. They could if they chose to walk into any police station and claim asylum, in France, Austria, Spain, Italy, Greece etc... they'll have passed a fair few before deciding to live in squalor in between jumping at lorries or trains in Calais. The EU asylum system and general handling of it over the previous few years is a farce.
15
2
In reply to summo:
I wasn't talking about the jungle
Please, enlighten us, what is your solution ? (Other than just complaining)
> I'd say it is amazing the risk people are prepared to take to avoid living in mainland Europe, where there is also an asylum system and they are already safe. All for some dream they've been sold by traffickers or seen online.
> You miss the fact they aren't forced to live in the Jungle, they aren't forced to come to the UK. They could if they chose to walk into any police station and claim asylum, in France, Austria, Spain, Italy, Greece etc... they'll have passed a fair few before deciding to live in squalor in between jumping at lorries or trains in Calais.
I wasn't talking about the jungle
> The EU asylum system and general handling of it over the previous few years is a farce.
Please, enlighten us, what is your solution ? (Other than just complaining)
Post edited at 07:25
3
7
In reply to Big Ger:
The vast majority in Calais are genuine asylum seekers according to the French government - but yes.
It's simply that they have nowhere to go. Turkey and Lebanon cannot integrate so many people, so they end up in official and unofficial refugee camp, with poor humanitarian situation.
We just pay to keep them there indefinitely, instead of letting them have a life and earn their own living. It doesn't make sense.
> That's a sensible rule.
> Which would mean we would be able to weed out the non-genuine asylum seekers.
The vast majority in Calais are genuine asylum seekers according to the French government - but yes.
> Why should we be resettling people who are in a safe country?
It's simply that they have nowhere to go. Turkey and Lebanon cannot integrate so many people, so they end up in official and unofficial refugee camp, with poor humanitarian situation.
We just pay to keep them there indefinitely, instead of letting them have a life and earn their own living. It doesn't make sense.
Post edited at 07:25
1
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
The answer won't come from the EU, it's incapable. Only 2 or 3 choices;
-suck it up, pay more tax and absorb all of Syria etc. into Europe and the disorganised farce continues.
- face down Assad and Putin, war crimes this week and it's strong words against Assad at best. There isn't a current political leader with the toughness or credibility to do a meaningful face down, Putin will call their bluff in seconds.
-Asylum seekers / refugees have no say in where they go in Europe. It is all better than Syria and they are safe anywhere. A fair sharing out around all nations (globally, if you had a stake in the Iraq war etc.. then you have responsibility here). The UK and USA take many more, Sweden & Germany take less. Greece, Spain and Italy get more International (not just EU) assistance in setting up better arrival points.
> Please, enlighten us, what is your solution ? (Other than complaining about the EU)
The answer won't come from the EU, it's incapable. Only 2 or 3 choices;
-suck it up, pay more tax and absorb all of Syria etc. into Europe and the disorganised farce continues.
- face down Assad and Putin, war crimes this week and it's strong words against Assad at best. There isn't a current political leader with the toughness or credibility to do a meaningful face down, Putin will call their bluff in seconds.
-Asylum seekers / refugees have no say in where they go in Europe. It is all better than Syria and they are safe anywhere. A fair sharing out around all nations (globally, if you had a stake in the Iraq war etc.. then you have responsibility here). The UK and USA take many more, Sweden & Germany take less. Greece, Spain and Italy get more International (not just EU) assistance in setting up better arrival points.
5
1
In reply to summo:
This sounds like such a western centric view of Syria. Putin has been preaching stability (and his preferred status quo) in Syria since the start. It wouldn't have been pleasant but it would have been far less of a clusterf*ck than what has happened. And the refugee problem would almost definitely be far less serious.
This sounds like such a western centric view of Syria. Putin has been preaching stability (and his preferred status quo) in Syria since the start. It wouldn't have been pleasant but it would have been far less of a clusterf*ck than what has happened. And the refugee problem would almost definitely be far less serious.
2
In reply to stevieb:
I guess you are more tolerant of a brutal dictator living in luxury whilst using chemical weapons on his population than I am. Each to their own.
Putin peace? I presume that is Putin's version of peace, not anyone elses. A little like putin's ideas on democracy.
> This sounds like such a western centric view of Syria. Putin has been preaching stability (and his preferred status quo) in Syria since the start. It wouldn't have been pleasant but it would have been far less of a clusterf*ck than what has happened. And the refugee problem would almost definitely be far less serious.
I guess you are more tolerant of a brutal dictator living in luxury whilst using chemical weapons on his population than I am. Each to their own.
Putin peace? I presume that is Putin's version of peace, not anyone elses. A little like putin's ideas on democracy.
2
2
In reply to summo:
You've changed the word stability to peace to make your point.
This war started as a brutal repression of a small uprising. It could have stayed at that. It would have stayed at that in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait etc.
Instead 400000+ people are now dead.
Putin is an awful kleptocrat but he has a pretty good understanding of realpolitik.
You've changed the word stability to peace to make your point.
This war started as a brutal repression of a small uprising. It could have stayed at that. It would have stayed at that in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait etc.
Instead 400000+ people are now dead.
Putin is an awful kleptocrat but he has a pretty good understanding of realpolitik.
2
2
In reply to stevieb:
And why do you think the people were protesting? Because they'd never had it so good?
You don't think that all these people live in a more modern world now, where there is knowledge of how other countries are run and the kind of civilised society we enjoy, they aren't kept in the dark in the internet age. They'll look at StevieB's facebook page and think I'll have some of that, stuff Assad I'm leaving. When one person oppresses millions, it's a question of when, not if.
Is shooting down a civilian airliner over Crimea/Ukraine, under peace or stability in your book?
> You've changed the word stability to peace to make your point.
> This war started as a brutal repression of a small uprising. It could have stayed at that. It would have stayed at that in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait etc.
> This war started as a brutal repression of a small uprising. It could have stayed at that. It would have stayed at that in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait etc.
And why do you think the people were protesting? Because they'd never had it so good?
You don't think that all these people live in a more modern world now, where there is knowledge of how other countries are run and the kind of civilised society we enjoy, they aren't kept in the dark in the internet age. They'll look at StevieB's facebook page and think I'll have some of that, stuff Assad I'm leaving. When one person oppresses millions, it's a question of when, not if.
Is shooting down a civilian airliner over Crimea/Ukraine, under peace or stability in your book?
Post edited at 09:18
In reply to summo:
Well one of the major reasons was the worst 4 year drought in the country's recorded history.
Yes I'm sure that the 70% sunni muslim population wants to take control of the country. The nearby sunni countries are also massively in favour of this outcome. Most of the other 30% are far more terrified of this prospect than they are of Assad.
> And why do you think the people were protesting? Because they'd never had it so good?
Well one of the major reasons was the worst 4 year drought in the country's recorded history.
> You don't think that all these people live in a more modern world now, where there is knowledge of how other countries are run and the kind of civilised society we enjoy, they aren't kept in the dark in the internet age. They'll look at StevieB's facebook page and think I'll have some of that, stuff Assad I'm leaving. When one person oppresses millions, it's a question of when, not if.
Yes I'm sure that the 70% sunni muslim population wants to take control of the country. The nearby sunni countries are also massively in favour of this outcome. Most of the other 30% are far more terrified of this prospect than they are of Assad.
> Is shooting down a civilian airliner over Crimea/Ukraine, under peace or stability in your book?
That was a bad thing. Just like it was a bad thing when north korea did it, and a bad thing when the US did it.
4
3
In reply to stevieb:
Are you Assad's PR agent? Are those barrels of water for the crops they are dropping from helicopters on Aleppo?
So perhaps a democratic parliament, where people vote in their own version of MPs, each group would be represented proportionally. Rather than simply having Assads way, or the highway to Europe?
> Well one of the major reasons was the worst 4 year drought in the country's recorded history.
Are you Assad's PR agent? Are those barrels of water for the crops they are dropping from helicopters on Aleppo?
> Yes I'm sure that the 70% sunni muslim population wants to take control of the country. The nearby sunni countries are also massively in favour of this outcome. Most of the other 30% are far more terrified of this prospect than they are of Assad.
So perhaps a democratic parliament, where people vote in their own version of MPs, each group would be represented proportionally. Rather than simply having Assads way, or the highway to Europe?
1
1
In reply to French Erick:
I really don't think there is any 'reality' whatever involved in Brexit. Boris, after using the threat of Turkey getting into the EU to argue for Brexit is now saying Britain supports Turkey getting into the EU. And also they make great washing machines and he's sorry for saying their president shags goats.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/boris-johnson-uk-suppor...
I don't see a hope in hell of Boris, Liam Fox and David Davis negotiating anything with the EU.
I really don't think there is any 'reality' whatever involved in Brexit. Boris, after using the threat of Turkey getting into the EU to argue for Brexit is now saying Britain supports Turkey getting into the EU. And also they make great washing machines and he's sorry for saying their president shags goats.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/boris-johnson-uk-suppor...
I don't see a hope in hell of Boris, Liam Fox and David Davis negotiating anything with the EU.
2
1
In reply to summo:
No, I just don't have some airy fairy idealistic black and white view of the world. You've got to give me a pretty strong reason why 400 000 dead is better than 10 000. Most people in these countries will take security over democracy.
In your wonderful world, does this sunni muslim parliament respect the rights of all minorities? Does it even stay democratic for more than one term?
No, I just don't have some airy fairy idealistic black and white view of the world. You've got to give me a pretty strong reason why 400 000 dead is better than 10 000. Most people in these countries will take security over democracy.
In your wonderful world, does this sunni muslim parliament respect the rights of all minorities? Does it even stay democratic for more than one term?
2
In reply to summo:
Why's no one else thought of that!? Simple, let it be tomorrow.!
> So perhaps a democratic parliament, where people vote in their own version of MPs, each group would be represented proportionally. Rather than simply having Assads way, or the highway to Europe?
Why's no one else thought of that!? Simple, let it be tomorrow.!
1
In reply to stevieb/MG:
When your own leader is barrel bombing you, I would suggest that isn't security. Perhaps they were uprising because they were happy in the first place?
Not suggesting it is simple, but we are where we are. Do we let it play out and house everyone from Syria in Europe?
I agree it won't work instantly, where people are prepared to kill each other because of minute variations in what one imaginary being, logic and democracy doesn't stand much chance, but it can't be worse than now?
> Most people in these countries will take security over democracy.
When your own leader is barrel bombing you, I would suggest that isn't security. Perhaps they were uprising because they were happy in the first place?
> In your wonderful world, does this sunni muslim parliament respect the rights of all minorities?
Not suggesting it is simple, but we are where we are. Do we let it play out and house everyone from Syria in Europe?
I agree it won't work instantly, where people are prepared to kill each other because of minute variations in what one imaginary being, logic and democracy doesn't stand much chance, but it can't be worse than now?
Post edited at 10:16
1
In reply to summo:
It's a total mess, and if we know what the end game really is, then maybe it's worth carrying on the war the get the best outcome. The shortest route to some level of stability is probably an Assad/Russia win and that has been true since it started. If this happens now, then the reprisals may be horrendous. The bigger point is that outside agencies inflated the problems in Syria, and reacted completely differently in Egypt where we helped to overturn a Sunni democratic revolution.
Do I take from your view on Syria, that you think Blair was right in Iraq? Saddam was an even bigger tyrant than Assad.
It's a total mess, and if we know what the end game really is, then maybe it's worth carrying on the war the get the best outcome. The shortest route to some level of stability is probably an Assad/Russia win and that has been true since it started. If this happens now, then the reprisals may be horrendous. The bigger point is that outside agencies inflated the problems in Syria, and reacted completely differently in Egypt where we helped to overturn a Sunni democratic revolution.
Do I take from your view on Syria, that you think Blair was right in Iraq? Saddam was an even bigger tyrant than Assad.
In reply to stevieb:
the blair / bush intervention in Iraq is to blame for many of the instabilities. Without IS (or similar) gaining ground, many problems caused by dictators could possibly have been solved by diplomacy, sanctions etc... but who knows as it's way past that point now. Also the west is playing a dangerous game with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Letting Assad/Putin win isn't going to help peace there long term either, only a temporary solution. Putin got Crimea, would it be OK if he took back a few more former communist states, better to live a repressed live under a dictator then lose lives defending a country?
There is of course the option of the west walks away from the ME/North Africa altogether. In a few hundred years time it will settle (a little). In reality I think we are in the early stages of a new 100 years war, where only long term education or a massive natural disaster on a global scale will move people and countries away from their current course of self destruction.
> Do I take from your view on Syria, that you think Blair was right in Iraq? Saddam was an even bigger tyrant than Assad.
the blair / bush intervention in Iraq is to blame for many of the instabilities. Without IS (or similar) gaining ground, many problems caused by dictators could possibly have been solved by diplomacy, sanctions etc... but who knows as it's way past that point now. Also the west is playing a dangerous game with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Letting Assad/Putin win isn't going to help peace there long term either, only a temporary solution. Putin got Crimea, would it be OK if he took back a few more former communist states, better to live a repressed live under a dictator then lose lives defending a country?
There is of course the option of the west walks away from the ME/North Africa altogether. In a few hundred years time it will settle (a little). In reality I think we are in the early stages of a new 100 years war, where only long term education or a massive natural disaster on a global scale will move people and countries away from their current course of self destruction.
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
depends if you are talking about economic migrants or Refugees. ( it seems to be getting conflated again)
If its refugees, I agree with you.
depends if you are talking about economic migrants or Refugees. ( it seems to be getting conflated again)
If its refugees, I agree with you.
1
In reply to Jim C:
Do the two not get conflated because at its extremes, an economic migrant may have as much justification for trying to move elsewhere? If you look at countries where there is widespread famine or no chance of earning enough to live, then I find it hard to condemn people who then try to leave on the basis that their need is only "economic". Where do you draw the line?
Do the two not get conflated because at its extremes, an economic migrant may have as much justification for trying to move elsewhere? If you look at countries where there is widespread famine or no chance of earning enough to live, then I find it hard to condemn people who then try to leave on the basis that their need is only "economic". Where do you draw the line?
2
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
No.
> Do the two not get conflated because at its extremes, an economic migrant may have as much justification for trying to move elsewhere?
No.
4
3
In reply to French Erick:
The modern world is a clusterf*ck alright. We all want to have a good life in our corner. However things are so interlinked now that it won't ever happen. We make arguments on semantics. I am of those who think that economic migrant or refugee is the same thing. How could I not I am one myself! The only thing is that under EU laws I could do it. Why would I decide I am better and call myself an expat? Plenty Brits are economic migrants too if they decided to, literally , seek their fortune elsewhere.
Migration is never going to be just one country's problem. There is a high likelihood of a jungle on the UK soil when France decide they can be bothered with an advanced UK border.
All of these are my opinions based on my interpretation of my world (a franco-scottish one).
I am unsure whether or not I am right! I haven't got any solutions.
The modern world is a clusterf*ck alright. We all want to have a good life in our corner. However things are so interlinked now that it won't ever happen. We make arguments on semantics. I am of those who think that economic migrant or refugee is the same thing. How could I not I am one myself! The only thing is that under EU laws I could do it. Why would I decide I am better and call myself an expat? Plenty Brits are economic migrants too if they decided to, literally , seek their fortune elsewhere.
Migration is never going to be just one country's problem. There is a high likelihood of a jungle on the UK soil when France decide they can be bothered with an advanced UK border.
All of these are my opinions based on my interpretation of my world (a franco-scottish one).
I am unsure whether or not I am right! I haven't got any solutions.
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
So let them seek asylum in France if they are genuine. To seek it elsewhere makes them non genuine.
In France, a safe nation.
Why can they not do that in France? (or any of the other safe countries they've come through.)
> The vast majority in Calais are genuine asylum seekers according to the French government - but yes.
So let them seek asylum in France if they are genuine. To seek it elsewhere makes them non genuine.
> It's simply that they have nowhere to go. Turkey and Lebanon cannot integrate so many people, so they end up in official and unofficial refugee camp, with poor humanitarian situation.
In France, a safe nation.
> We just pay to keep them there indefinitely, instead of letting them have a life and earn their own living. It doesn't make sense.
Why can they not do that in France? (or any of the other safe countries they've come through.)
10
In reply to French Erick:
would totally agree, in time (perhaps a long time) the whole world will have a roughly averaged standard of living, but that will involve some of us in the west lowering ours.
> The modern world is a clusterf*ck alright. We all want to have a good life in our corner. However things are so interlinked now that it won't ever happen.
would totally agree, in time (perhaps a long time) the whole world will have a roughly averaged standard of living, but that will involve some of us in the west lowering ours.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
According to the French government perhaps, but the BBC couldn't find one the other day.. they had a chap from Morocco! I'll see if I can find the footage online..
According to the French government perhaps, but the BBC couldn't find one the other day.. they had a chap from Morocco! I'll see if I can find the footage online..
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
Of course they have somewhere to go, they are already in safe mainland Europe.
> The vast majority in Calais are genuine asylum seekers according to the French government - but yes.
> It's simply that they have nowhere to go.
Of course they have somewhere to go, they are already in safe mainland Europe.
4
In reply to paul mitchell:
It can't be a major factor otherwise there would be no need for interpreters or forms in umpteen languages in both the migration and public service sectors.
> I wonder if migrants want to come here solely because they speak English?
It can't be a major factor otherwise there would be no need for interpreters or forms in umpteen languages in both the migration and public service sectors.
2
In reply to summo:
More likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. Arbitarily giving every migrant the same motivation is pretty narrow minded.
More likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. Arbitarily giving every migrant the same motivation is pretty narrow minded.
3
In reply to cragtaff:
I wasn't referring to those in Calais, I was referring to those in official and unofficial camps in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey.
> Of course they have somewhere to go, they are already in safe mainland Europe.
I wasn't referring to those in Calais, I was referring to those in official and unofficial camps in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey.
3
In reply to summo:
I completely agree - resettling most of the Syrian refugees across the EU and the US, would amount to an increase in population of something like 0.3%. Barely noticeable.
And that's exactly what the answer the EU has been pushing for....
> The answer won't come from the EU, it's incapable. Only 2 or 3 choices;
> -suck it up, pay more tax and absorb all of Syria etc. into Europe and the disorganised farce continues.
> - face down Assad and Putin, war crimes this week and it's strong words against Assad at best. There isn't a current political leader with the toughness or credibility to do a meaningful face down, Putin will call their bluff in seconds.
> -Asylum seekers / refugees have no say in where they go in Europe. It is all better than Syria and they are safe anywhere. A fair sharing out around all nations (globally, if you had a stake in the Iraq war etc.. then you have responsibility here). The UK and USA take many more, Sweden & Germany take less. Greece, Spain and Italy get more International (not just EU) assistance in setting up better arrival points.
I completely agree - resettling most of the Syrian refugees across the EU and the US, would amount to an increase in population of something like 0.3%. Barely noticeable.
And that's exactly what the answer the EU has been pushing for....
1
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Fine in theory, but it won't be such a low percentage, once you add in all those people who 'lose' their passport and suddenly become Syrian and under 18.
> I completely agree - resettling most of the Syrian refugees across the EU and the US, would amount to an increase in population of something like 0.3%. Barely noticeable.
Fine in theory, but it won't be such a low percentage, once you add in all those people who 'lose' their passport and suddenly become Syrian and under 18.
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
You're forgetting about the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, (and others from further afield), who seem to have discovered they actually come from Syria.
You'll also have difficulty spreading the influx out in such an even manner, (1 refugee per 300 people). It will be several hundred or a few thousand in one location, potentially transforming the area out of all recognition. As the Swedes have discovered, it doesn't take many violent '14 year olds' with a fondness for sexual assault to destabilise a community.
I'm not sure what is the least worst option given the numbers that will continue to arrive over the next few years and beyond.
> I completely agree - resettling most of the Syrian refugees across the EU and the US, would amount to an increase in population of something like 0.3%. Barely noticeable.
You're forgetting about the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, (and others from further afield), who seem to have discovered they actually come from Syria.
You'll also have difficulty spreading the influx out in such an even manner, (1 refugee per 300 people). It will be several hundred or a few thousand in one location, potentially transforming the area out of all recognition. As the Swedes have discovered, it doesn't take many violent '14 year olds' with a fondness for sexual assault to destabilise a community.
I'm not sure what is the least worst option given the numbers that will continue to arrive over the next few years and beyond.
Post edited at 21:43
2
In reply to Ridge:
I would say be careful about what you read in the right wing press. My Facebook is full of people posting about the so called horrors commited by refugees in Sweden. Then I tried to fact check some of them and it turned out most of the time the story was either completely made up, or the perpetrators unknown.
Truth is, I haven't found any evidence whatsoever of refugees commiting more serious crimes than the native population.
Nobody said it's be easy, but it's been done before. Many times in fact. In any way, this is probably the only sustainable solution, along with resolving the conflict in the first place.
> You're forgetting about the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, (and others from further afield), who seem to have discovered they actually come from Syria.
> You'll also have difficulty spreading the influx out in such an even manner, (1 refugee per 300 people). It will be several hundred or a few thousand in one location, potentially transforming the area out of all recognition. As the Swedes have discovered, it doesn't take many violent '14 year olds' with a fondness for sexual assault to destabilise a community.
I would say be careful about what you read in the right wing press. My Facebook is full of people posting about the so called horrors commited by refugees in Sweden. Then I tried to fact check some of them and it turned out most of the time the story was either completely made up, or the perpetrators unknown.
Truth is, I haven't found any evidence whatsoever of refugees commiting more serious crimes than the native population.
> I'm not sure what is the least worst option given the numbers that will continue to arrive over the next few years and beyond.
Nobody said it's be easy, but it's been done before. Many times in fact. In any way, this is probably the only sustainable solution, along with resolving the conflict in the first place.
Post edited at 07:31
2
2
In reply to summo:
The idea of bogus refugee is an interesting one. No one leaves their home very willingly. I was coerced by love as a lesser and most benign for example. So everyone tries their luck for a better life but finds the locals where they wished to go have made fairly precise rules. The migrant may or not have known these but confronted with them will try to conform with them. That hardly is a crime and most of us would do the same.
I can understand locals being annoyed, I cant understand why they are so scathing an nasty about it. The bogus claimant is forever demonized. Come on folks you may feel threatened but they're not after you.
Back to op. Closing the UK to Europe is one thing but it won't stop the flow of migrant. Migration is not just the problem of the first port of safe call. That s a typical answer from someone who doesn't want to be bothered and leaves far enough to pretend it's not happening.
This country has changed enormously in the 15 years I have been here. I was so pleasantly surprised on how open and no prejudiced.
> Fine in theory, but it won't be such a low percentage, once you add in all those people who 'lose' their passport and suddenly become Syrian and under 18.
The idea of bogus refugee is an interesting one. No one leaves their home very willingly. I was coerced by love as a lesser and most benign for example. So everyone tries their luck for a better life but finds the locals where they wished to go have made fairly precise rules. The migrant may or not have known these but confronted with them will try to conform with them. That hardly is a crime and most of us would do the same.
I can understand locals being annoyed, I cant understand why they are so scathing an nasty about it. The bogus claimant is forever demonized. Come on folks you may feel threatened but they're not after you.
Back to op. Closing the UK to Europe is one thing but it won't stop the flow of migrant. Migration is not just the problem of the first port of safe call. That s a typical answer from someone who doesn't want to be bothered and leaves far enough to pretend it's not happening.
This country has changed enormously in the 15 years I have been here. I was so pleasantly surprised on how open and no prejudiced.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Swedish law prevents suspects being named until proven innocent or guilty in court, you'll always find limited specific details. It's a little like NI and UK mainland, there are constant problems, but only the big incidents hit the press beyond the countries shores.
I wouldn't believe the left wing press when they tell you it's made up. In 5 years of being here and taking our kids to the pool complex in the city, twice I've seen the police arrive and help staff remove a group of youths. Both times they weren't native swedes, the second time was a proven sexual assault and the place took over a year before numbers of people going there again increased, it was like a ghost town the month after. We only kept going because the lessons were prepaid and we don't let our kids out of our sight there anyway. There have no doubt been other incidents I've missed. I've seen the burnt out cars myself too and heard first hand of police and fire staff being stoned. Be under no illusion the events are real. Swedes are generally very socialist or left thinking etc.. so the far right doesn't have 12+% of the MPs/EMPs etc. without good reason. I think if nothing changes there will be some shocks at the next election, even the most tolerant person has had enough of the current policy.
> I would say be careful about what you read in the right wing press. My Facebook is full of people posting about the so called horrors commited by refugees in Sweden. Then I tried to fact check some of them and it turned out most of the time the story was either completely made up, or the perpetrators unknown.
Swedish law prevents suspects being named until proven innocent or guilty in court, you'll always find limited specific details. It's a little like NI and UK mainland, there are constant problems, but only the big incidents hit the press beyond the countries shores.
I wouldn't believe the left wing press when they tell you it's made up. In 5 years of being here and taking our kids to the pool complex in the city, twice I've seen the police arrive and help staff remove a group of youths. Both times they weren't native swedes, the second time was a proven sexual assault and the place took over a year before numbers of people going there again increased, it was like a ghost town the month after. We only kept going because the lessons were prepaid and we don't let our kids out of our sight there anyway. There have no doubt been other incidents I've missed. I've seen the burnt out cars myself too and heard first hand of police and fire staff being stoned. Be under no illusion the events are real. Swedes are generally very socialist or left thinking etc.. so the far right doesn't have 12+% of the MPs/EMPs etc. without good reason. I think if nothing changes there will be some shocks at the next election, even the most tolerant person has had enough of the current policy.
3
In reply to French Erick:
Not directly after us, but they are draining the system massively, in all respects and it's the taxpayer who is suffering as a fair proportion have no intention of being educated, learn the language or working. The bigger countries need to take many more, so we agree in part.
I live in Sweden, which makes france's migration look like drop in the ocean proportionally, so I'm not hiding from it.
ps. there are plenty from places like Algeria whose citizens claim to be syrian and 16 here, there was a Radio4 programme some time ago following them, where they burnt their passport once they'd crossed their last official border checkpoint. They can't say 17 because if their case drags out and they turn 18 their status changes. A 25yr old, who pretends to be 17 is entitled to bring their family over (human rights). Some countries like Norway and Finland have introduced dentist checks to try and age people more accurately.
> I can understand locals being annoyed, I cant understand why they are so scathing an nasty about it. The bogus claimant is forever demonized. Come on folks you may feel threatened but they're not after you.
Not directly after us, but they are draining the system massively, in all respects and it's the taxpayer who is suffering as a fair proportion have no intention of being educated, learn the language or working. The bigger countries need to take many more, so we agree in part.
> That s a typical answer from someone who doesn't want to be bothered and leaves far enough to pretend it's not happening.
I live in Sweden, which makes france's migration look like drop in the ocean proportionally, so I'm not hiding from it.
ps. there are plenty from places like Algeria whose citizens claim to be syrian and 16 here, there was a Radio4 programme some time ago following them, where they burnt their passport once they'd crossed their last official border checkpoint. They can't say 17 because if their case drags out and they turn 18 their status changes. A 25yr old, who pretends to be 17 is entitled to bring their family over (human rights). Some countries like Norway and Finland have introduced dentist checks to try and age people more accurately.
Post edited at 08:17
3
1
In reply to summo:
But I guess you just assume they are guilty and refugee anyway.
> you'll always find limited specific details. It's a little like NI and UK mainland, there are constant problems, but only the big incidents hit the press beyond the countries shores.
But how do you know they were refugees ?
I've lived in a French suburb when I was a kid - burnt cars and groups of foreign looking youth being removed by police was a daily occurrence. And that was well before any refugee crisis.
You seem to base your opinion on nothing. There is no systematic evidence that refugees have been disproportionately at the origin of crime in Sweden. None. I don't really see why this population is being systematically accused without evidence.
> Swedish law prevents suspects being named until proven innocent or guilty in court,
But I guess you just assume they are guilty and refugee anyway.
> you'll always find limited specific details. It's a little like NI and UK mainland, there are constant problems, but only the big incidents hit the press beyond the countries shores.
> I wouldn't believe the left wing press when they tell you it's made up. In 5 years of being here and taking our kids to the pool complex in the city, twice I've seen the police arrive and help staff remove a group of youths. Both times they weren't native swedes,
But how do you know they were refugees ?
I've lived in a French suburb when I was a kid - burnt cars and groups of foreign looking youth being removed by police was a daily occurrence. And that was well before any refugee crisis.
You seem to base your opinion on nothing. There is no systematic evidence that refugees have been disproportionately at the origin of crime in Sweden. None. I don't really see why this population is being systematically accused without evidence.
Post edited at 08:21
6
In reply to RomTheBear:
I think the gave away is when the arrested suspects of sexual assault or arson go to court, are found guilty and their published nationality is X and their address is asylum centre Y.
I think the gave away is when the arrested suspects of sexual assault or arson go to court, are found guilty and their published nationality is X and their address is asylum centre Y.
5
In reply to French Erick:
So soon we'll have to call you British Erick? Why was this not highlighted during the Brexit campaign?
So soon we'll have to call you British Erick? Why was this not highlighted during the Brexit campaign?
1
In reply to summo:
yes, and I'm still waiting for evidence of any such cases like this in any statistically significant numbers.
If anything, most arson attacks in Sweden seem to have been directed AT asylum centres.
I haven't even found ONE case where an asylum seeker was found guilty of setting someone's car on fire by a Swedish court, not a SINGLE occurrence.
In fact most of the reports of crime committed by asylum seekers in Sweden you find online, are from non-Swedish right wing websites, and they usually have no evidence whatsoever.
> I think the gave away is when the arrested suspects of sexual assault or arson go to court, are found guilty and their published nationality is X and their address is asylum centre Y.
yes, and I'm still waiting for evidence of any such cases like this in any statistically significant numbers.
If anything, most arson attacks in Sweden seem to have been directed AT asylum centres.
I haven't even found ONE case where an asylum seeker was found guilty of setting someone's car on fire by a Swedish court, not a SINGLE occurrence.
In fact most of the reports of crime committed by asylum seekers in Sweden you find online, are from non-Swedish right wing websites, and they usually have no evidence whatsoever.
Post edited at 10:45
3
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Your opinion is similar to many politicians here, if you keep telling the population that 300,000 plus migrants are arriving annually and Integrating successfully , but the whole population knows otherwise, then people stop voting for you.
Your opinion is similar to many politicians here, if you keep telling the population that 300,000 plus migrants are arriving annually and Integrating successfully , but the whole population knows otherwise, then people stop voting for you.
6
1
In reply to summo:
It's no surprise, the gap between perceptions and reality on immigration is well documented.
It doesn't seem that you "know" otherwise. You just "believe" otherwise. Despite repeatedly asking you to provide any evidence of widespread crimes committed by refugees, you still seem unable to do so.
In fact you seem to not even have a clue of even the very basic facts, the highest yearly number of people migrating to Sweden recorded is at around 116,000, nothing like your made up 300,000.
> Your opinion is similar to many politicians here, if you keep telling the population that 300,000 plus migrants are arriving annually and Integrating successfully , but the whole population knows otherwise, then people stop voting for you.
It's no surprise, the gap between perceptions and reality on immigration is well documented.
It doesn't seem that you "know" otherwise. You just "believe" otherwise. Despite repeatedly asking you to provide any evidence of widespread crimes committed by refugees, you still seem unable to do so.
In fact you seem to not even have a clue of even the very basic facts, the highest yearly number of people migrating to Sweden recorded is at around 116,000, nothing like your made up 300,000.
Post edited at 12:45
3
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
As far as I can tell,
the only reality on immigrants is that an awful lot of people don't want them in their country. All the statistics in the world won't make a jot of difference to these people. They do not want Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis etc moving in next door and building mosques down the road. That is the plain and simple fact. Yes, I know it doesn't bother you, or lots of other metropolitan middle class liberals, but you are in the minority . As I said in a post the other day, human beings are atavistically provincial on the whole. You're not going to change that with some progressive ideas about diversity, integration splashed with some political correctness. You're in for a world of disappointment, which i'm guessing your getting used to with the Scottish referendum, the last general election and the UK independence referendum (apologies if you are a Tory Brexit Unionist, but I didn't think you were).
As far as I can tell,
the only reality on immigrants is that an awful lot of people don't want them in their country. All the statistics in the world won't make a jot of difference to these people. They do not want Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis etc moving in next door and building mosques down the road. That is the plain and simple fact. Yes, I know it doesn't bother you, or lots of other metropolitan middle class liberals, but you are in the minority . As I said in a post the other day, human beings are atavistically provincial on the whole. You're not going to change that with some progressive ideas about diversity, integration splashed with some political correctness. You're in for a world of disappointment, which i'm guessing your getting used to with the Scottish referendum, the last general election and the UK independence referendum (apologies if you are a Tory Brexit Unionist, but I didn't think you were).
6
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
In the interest of clarity I notice you haven't mentioned sexual assaults alleged by asylum seekers / immigrants in Sweden (as highlighted by the previous post - not just arson).
Similarly it looks like 163,000 asylum-seekers were dealt with in 2015 and the DG of the Swedish Migration Agency described the situation as very difficult to cope with. Not least the impact of unaccompanied children which in my experience, anecdotal I know, combines people claiming to be kids to assist asylum applications as well as presenting huge pressure on children's services.
Continually minimising the problem doesn't help
In the interest of clarity I notice you haven't mentioned sexual assaults alleged by asylum seekers / immigrants in Sweden (as highlighted by the previous post - not just arson).
Similarly it looks like 163,000 asylum-seekers were dealt with in 2015 and the DG of the Swedish Migration Agency described the situation as very difficult to cope with. Not least the impact of unaccompanied children which in my experience, anecdotal I know, combines people claiming to be kids to assist asylum applications as well as presenting huge pressure on children's services.
Continually minimising the problem doesn't help
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
https://www.google.se/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+asyl+%C3%B6verfall+skuld
https://www.google.se/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sweden+arson+car+vehicles+2016
> It's no surprise, the gap between perceptions and reality on immigration is well documented.
https://www.google.se/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+asyl+%C3%B6verfall+skuld
https://www.google.se/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sweden+arson+car+vehicles+2016
Post edited at 18:17
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Swedes don't mind migrants, they make up a huge part of society and in general most people are proud they are part of a country that helps others. Sweden's eurovision entrants(public vote and a very big event here) and winners have regularly been from migrant families, there are migrant MPs, TV celebs, sport stars, Zlatan obviously 1st generation etc.. but what the average Swede can't stand are tens of thousands of migrants coming who aren't prepared to help themselves and are simply on the take. Society thinking here is that everyone does their bit, everyone should work, everyone pays some tax regardless of how low your income etc... you can call it socialist to a degree, but a large proportion of N African/ME migrants simply aren't doing their bit and the difference between the current asylum seekers and those who came from the Balkans is noticeable and compared by many.
> As far as I can tell,
> the only reality on immigrants is that an awful lot of people don't want them in their country. All the statistics in the world won't make a jot of difference to these people. They do not want Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis etc moving in next door and building mosques down the road. That is the plain and simple fact.
Swedes don't mind migrants, they make up a huge part of society and in general most people are proud they are part of a country that helps others. Sweden's eurovision entrants(public vote and a very big event here) and winners have regularly been from migrant families, there are migrant MPs, TV celebs, sport stars, Zlatan obviously 1st generation etc.. but what the average Swede can't stand are tens of thousands of migrants coming who aren't prepared to help themselves and are simply on the take. Society thinking here is that everyone does their bit, everyone should work, everyone pays some tax regardless of how low your income etc... you can call it socialist to a degree, but a large proportion of N African/ME migrants simply aren't doing their bit and the difference between the current asylum seekers and those who came from the Balkans is noticeable and compared by many.
Post edited at 18:18
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...