I feel sorry for the kids, even when families are safely within the borders of Europe and over a thousand miles from Syria/Afganistan/Wherever, they do something utterly stupid like stuff them in the back of an air tight refrigeration lorry with 70 other folk, this incident must prove beyond doubt that asylum and safety is not their priority but to get to a specific country for financial gain which is NOT the same as seeking asylum!
You've got completely the wrong target here. It's the traffickers who are stuffing adults and children in a refrigeration lorry. It's the traffickers who are solely interested in financial gain rather than the safety of the poor unfortunate people they are transporting.
You've got completely the wrong target here. It's the traffickers who are stuffing adults and children in a refrigeration lorry. It's the traffickers who are solely interested in financial gain rather than the safety of the poor unfortunate people they are transporting.
Yes I also hate the traffickers but if someone told you and your family to get into the back of an airtight lorry when you were already in a safe country, would you? I know I wouldn't!
this is a very interesting read.While I have no time for economic migrants who would sell their granny to get what they want and will destroy camps and destroy economies to please themselves
But this article brings it home that among them are refugees fleeing for their lives
this is a very interesting read.While I have no time for economic migrants who would sell their granny to get what they want and will destroy camps and destroy economies to please themselves
But this article brings it home that among them are refugees fleeing for their lives
So Raad from Baghdad just wants to "go anywhere safe" and yet he's in Greece which IS safe, so what he really means is I "I want to go somewhere safe that will house and feed me", right?
this is a very interesting read.While I have no time for economic migrants who would sell their granny to get what they want and will destroy camps and destroy economies to please themselves
But this article brings it home that among them are refugees fleeing for their lives
It was a very interesting read, and I agree,someare fleeing for their lives. The obvious problem is that there are just too many of them coming over in uncontrollable numbers. The front line countries are becoming overwhelmed. Once Hungary's border is fully sealed, there will be backflow, which will merely ramp up the problem in such places as Greece and Macedonia. The border sealing and strengthening will then - of necessity - extend to those countries as well.
It was always the case that once one or two countries started sealing their borders, a domino effect will cascade downwards.
So Raad from Baghdad just wants to "go anywhere safe" and yet he's in Greece which IS safe, so what he really means is I "I want to go somewhere safe that will house and feed me", right?
Even they realise that Greece is in no position to shelter thousands
Even they realise that Greece is in no position to shelter thousands
As soon as they leave a safe country they are economic migrants, they don't want to stay anywhere in Southern Europe not just Greece, are we in a position to shelter thousands in the UK with our housing shortage, over crowded schools, over burdened NHS?
As soon as they leave a safe country they are economic migrants, they don't want to stay anywhere in Southern Europe not just Greece, are we in a position to shelter thousands in the UK with our housing shortage, over crowded schools, over burdened NHS?
I saw a report on Sky News which showed some of these people on their state-of-the- art mobile phones, using various social media to advise other incoming boatloads where to head for/places and pitfalls to avoid, etc.
As soon as they leave a safe country they are economic migrants, they don't want to stay anywhere in Southern Europe not just Greece, are we in a position to shelter thousands in the UK with our housing shortage, over crowded schools, over burdened NHS?
Did I say you should .? This crises has to be dealt with before they ever reach the EU IMO
The problem is some are genuinely running from war and chaos, some are economic migrants and there is probably a grey area inbetween.
Whatever - it needs a global management strategy. Just because Europe is the most convenient point of entry/goal doesn't mean it should be left to Europe to deal with it.
What is the UN doing - apart from mouthing platitudes?
The UNHCR (the part of the UN dedicated to helping refugees) does a huge amount
"Today, a staff of more than 9,300 people in 123 countries provides protection and assistance to nearly 55 million refugees, returnees, internally displaced and stateless people. A further 5.1 million registered refugees are being looked after in the Middle East by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees."
That is nearly the population of the UK that they are trying to provide/organise shelter; food; medical care; education; work etc.
The problem in Europe is severe - but one reason the UN say 'do more' is that they have a funding gap of $2.85 billion.. so cannot provide proper support for the 4 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and the other 3.5 million they are helping within Syria itself.
So Raad from Baghdad just wants to "go anywhere safe" and yet he's in Greece which IS safe, so what he really means is I "I want to go somewhere safe that will house and feed me", right?
I don't think it's that simple.
The biggest factor is probably language - most of the world has better English as a second language than any other. So maybe it's Britain's colonial past biting us in the backside now.
And also knowing of people in a particular country.
I think a lot of people seem to think there are no migrants stopping in any other European country, that they literally all come to the UK. But that's not the case at all. There are far more migrants stopping in the rest of Europe than are trying to get in to the UK.
No-one answered my earlier question though:
Why are there any illegal immigrants if they can come here legally and, I quote, "get everything handed to them on a plate"?
So Raad from Baghdad just wants to "go anywhere safe" and yet he's in Greece which IS safe, so what he really means is I "I want to go somewhere safe that will house and feed me", right?
Another question for you on this.
Suppose the UK was the nearest safe country.
Would you argue that the UK should take in everyone, or would you expect other countries to take in a share?
The UNHCR (the part of the UN dedicated to helping refugees) does a huge amount
"Today, a staff of more than 9,300 people in 123 countries provides protection and assistance to nearly 55 million refugees, returnees, internally displaced and stateless people. A further 5.1 million registered refugees are being looked after in the Middle East by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees."
That is nearly the population of the UK that they are trying to provide/organise shelter; food; medical care; education; work etc.
The problem in Europe is severe - but one reason the UN say 'do more' is that they have a funding gap of $2.85 billion.. so cannot provide proper support for the 4 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and the other 3.5 million they are helping within Syria itself.
How would people who rely on The Daily Mail for information about immigration, and would never dream of actually looking into what the UN are doing, ever know about that sort of thing?
The biggest factor is probably language - most of the world has better English as a second language than any other. So maybe it's Britain's colonial past biting us in the backside now.
And also knowing of people in a particular country.
I think a lot of people seem to think there are no migrants stopping in any other European country, that they literally all come to the UK. But that's not the case at all. There are far more migrants stopping in the rest of Europe than are trying to get in to the UK.
No-one answered my earlier question though:
Why are there any illegal immigrants if they can come here legally and, I quote, "get everything handed to them on a plate"?
This just seems counter intuitive to me.
Someone must know though....
The UK isn't the only English speaking country in the world though. Most of those also have a lot more space than we do.
Do you know how many migrants the USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand have offered to take?
The UK isn't the only English speaking country in the world though. Most of those also have a lot more space than we do.
Do you know how many migrants the USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand have offered to take?
It's a combination of factors - if we're talking predominantly about illegal migrants from Africa then the UK is clearly the nearest country which is both safe and English speaking.
I would have thought that much was obvious.
Maybe it would surprise you to know that there are more illegal immigrants from Central America in the US than there are in the UK or New Zealand. Maybe for the same reason, or maybe because they haven't heard about the whole "getting everything handed to them on a plate" in the UK thing. Who knows for sure though. Just my best guess.
On the subject of proximity to safety, if the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that the UK should take everyone?
It's a combination of factors - if we're talking predominantly about illegal migrants from Africa then the UK is clearly the nearest country which is both safe and English speaking.
I would have thought that much was obvious.
Maybe it would surprise you to know that there are more illegal immigrants from Central America in the US than there are in the UK or New Zealand. Maybe for the same reason, or maybe because they haven't heard about the whole "getting everything handed to them on a plate" in the UK thing. Who knows for sure though. Just my best guess.
On the subject of proximity to safety, if the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that the UK should take everyone?
Yes, but if the UN is taking as much interest as touted earlier, then why isn't it also arranging for safe passage to other countries, such as those I mentioned? Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
I'm pretty sure that if they were arranging for safe passage to English speaking countries outwith of Europe's borders, the Daily Mail would be reporting it.
Yes, but if the UN is taking as much interest as touted earlier, then why isn't it also arranging for safe passage to other countries, such as those I mentioned? Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
I'm pretty sure that if they were arranging for safe passage to English speaking countries outwith of Europe's borders, the Daily Mail would be reporting it.
You don't get why a lot of migrants / refugees head for the closest, safest country where language will be the least barrier to them?
Well, if we're talking about refugees, let's look at some actual data:
How would people who rely on The Daily Mail for information about immigration, and would never dream of actually looking into what the UN are doing, ever know about that sort of thing?
Comments
You've got completely the wrong target here. It's the traffickers who are stuffing adults and children in a refrigeration lorry. It's the traffickers who are solely interested in financial gain rather than the safety of the poor unfortunate people they are transporting.
Yes I also hate the traffickers but if someone told you and your family to get into the back of an airtight lorry when you were already in a safe country, would you? I know I wouldn't!
this is a very interesting read.While I have no time for economic migrants who would sell their granny to get what they want and will destroy camps and destroy economies to please themselves
But this article brings it home that among them are refugees fleeing for their lives
So Raad from Baghdad just wants to "go anywhere safe" and yet he's in Greece which IS safe, so what he really means is I "I want to go somewhere safe that will house and feed me", right?
It was a very interesting read, and I agree, some are fleeing for their lives. The obvious problem is that there are just too many of them coming over in uncontrollable numbers. The front line countries are becoming overwhelmed. Once Hungary's border is fully sealed, there will be backflow, which will merely ramp up the problem in such places as Greece and Macedonia. The border sealing and strengthening will then - of necessity - extend to those countries as well.
It was always the case that once one or two countries started sealing their borders, a domino effect will cascade downwards.
Even they realise that Greece is in no position to shelter thousands
As soon as they leave a safe country they are economic migrants, they don't want to stay anywhere in Southern Europe not just Greece, are we in a position to shelter thousands in the UK with our housing shortage, over crowded schools, over burdened NHS?
According to certain people on here, easily.
I wonder if they have private health care.
A kind of Trip Advisor service, I guess...
Did I say you should .? This crises has to be dealt with before they ever reach the EU IMO
The UNHCR (the part of the UN dedicated to helping refugees) does a huge amount
"Today, a staff of more than 9,300 people in 123 countries provides protection and assistance to nearly 55 million refugees, returnees, internally displaced and stateless people. A further 5.1 million registered refugees are being looked after in the Middle East by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees."
That is nearly the population of the UK that they are trying to provide/organise shelter; food; medical care; education; work etc.
The problem in Europe is severe - but one reason the UN say 'do more' is that they have a funding gap of $2.85 billion.. so cannot provide proper support for the 4 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and the other 3.5 million they are helping within Syria itself.
I don't think it's that simple.
The biggest factor is probably language - most of the world has better English as a second language than any other. So maybe it's Britain's colonial past biting us in the backside now.
And also knowing of people in a particular country.
I think a lot of people seem to think there are no migrants stopping in any other European country, that they literally all come to the UK. But that's not the case at all. There are far more migrants stopping in the rest of Europe than are trying to get in to the UK.
No-one answered my earlier question though:
Why are there any illegal immigrants if they can come here legally and, I quote, "get everything handed to them on a plate"?
This just seems counter intuitive to me.
Someone must know though....
Another question for you on this.
Suppose the UK was the nearest safe country.
Would you argue that the UK should take in everyone, or would you expect other countries to take in a share?
I'm guessing not in a million years.
Even if it continued at the current high levels for 20 years, which in itself is highly unlikely, that would only add 6m in 20 years, not 30m +.
How would people who rely on The Daily Mail for information about immigration, and would never dream of actually looking into what the UN are doing, ever know about that sort of thing?
The UK isn't the only English speaking country in the world though. Most of those also have a lot more space than we do.
Do you know how many migrants the USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand have offered to take?
It's a combination of factors - if we're talking predominantly about illegal migrants from Africa then the UK is clearly the nearest country which is both safe and English speaking.
I would have thought that much was obvious.
Maybe it would surprise you to know that there are more illegal immigrants from Central America in the US than there are in the UK or New Zealand. Maybe for the same reason, or maybe because they haven't heard about the whole "getting everything handed to them on a plate" in the UK thing. Who knows for sure though. Just my best guess.
On the subject of proximity to safety, if the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that the UK should take everyone?
Yes, but if the UN is taking as much interest as touted earlier, then why isn't it also arranging for safe passage to other countries, such as those I mentioned? Sorry, I'm still not getting it.
I'm pretty sure that if they were arranging for safe passage to English speaking countries outwith of Europe's borders, the Daily Mail would be reporting it.
Why, would you?
You don't get why a lot of migrants / refugees head for the closest, safest country where language will be the least barrier to them?
Well, if we're talking about refugees, let's look at some actual data:
refugees by country of destination
2010-2014
US - 4,761,000
UK - 142,000
Canada - 100,000
New Zealand - 17,000
Greece - 92,000
France - 98,000
Germany - 175,000
The UN are doing a lot, but arranging for safe passage for the huge numbers involved is, I suspect, a pretty big ask.
I also doubt very much that the Mail would ever report anything that wasn't hyperbole laden scaremongering, because that's the Mail's MO.
I don't see how my view would have any relevance to your view.
But since you ask, no.
Why, would you?
If the USA has taken 4,761,000, then Afghanistan has taken 2,556,556 multiplied by 1000 = 2556556000
based on your reading of the table
In fairness, they do (the DM)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2864829/UN-wants-countries-180-000-Syrian-refugees.html
but they tend not to talk so much about the financial assistance that could offset that.
Well if you ask a question which is manifestly absurd, then expect it to be rebounded back at you for your view.