Well if you ask a question which is manifestly absurd, then expect it to be rebounded back at you for your view.
It's not absurd though. Why do you think it is? Is it because the answer is obviously yes, or obviously no?
The argument is often made that migrants should stop in the closest safe country rather than continue on to the UK.
The question is perfectly reasonable, as I suspect most people would give a different answer depending on whether or not the UK was the closest safe country.
That may, or may not, be why you chose not to give an answer.
If the decimal point is in the wrong place, presumably you still get the point about the relative figures between the countries.
Or maybe not, if your only response is about the decimal point.
Put it this way, if you were a refugee from North Africa, with some English, but no other second language.
Where would you head for out of:
A. USA
B. Canada
C. UK
D. New Zealand
There's no decimal points in the table figures, merely whole numbers. But based on your interpretation, the USA has taken 4,761,000, whilst Afghanistan has taken 2556556000, using the same logic.
I think you might need to re-appraise your analysis somewhat.
I'm sorry but I can't debate with someone who hasn't even bothered to check that what they are quoting is consistent and accurate data.
There's no decimal points in the table figures, merely whole numbers. But based on your interpretation, the USA has taken 4,761,000, whilst Afghanistan has taken 2556556000, using the same logic.
I think you might need to re-appraise your analysis somewhat.
I'm sorry but I can't debate with someone who hasn't even bothered to check that what they are suggesting is serious data.
I have already posted the correct table - I had to look twice myself because the one that was originally posted is where refugees come from, and I saw '142' next to the UK... it never occurred to me that there were any refugees *from* the UK.
Anyway, to repeat, here is the correct data table.
There's no decimal points in the table figures, merely whole numbers. But based on your interpretation, the USA has taken 4,761,000, whilst Afghanistan has taken 2556556000, using the same logic.
I think you might need to re-appraise your analysis somewhat.
I'm sorry but I can't debate with someone who hasn't even bothered to check that what they are quoting is consistent and accurate data.
Whatever was wrong with the table wasn't obvious.
Either way, you seem to be avoiding answering questions.
I have already posted the correct table - I had to look twice myself because the one that was originally posted is where refugees come from, and I saw '142' next to the UK... it never occurred to me that there were any refugees *from* the UK.
Anyway, to repeat, here is the correct data table.
So back to my question - why can't some of the other English speaking countries in the world accept more migrants. Relative to the respective sizes of the UK and USA, for example, the USA could take a lot more.
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....
Much of Greece speaks English as a second language especially the holiday destinations these migrants are rocking up too. They dont think Greece can look after them probably, tough sh*t. That's where they are and they are safe. What ever they have in Greece is still a million times better than being bombed in Syria.
It's not absurd though. Why do you think it is? Is it because the answer is obviously yes, or obviously no?
The argument is often made that migrants should stop in the closest safe country rather than continue on to the UK.
The question is perfectly reasonable, as I suspect most people would give a different answer depending on whether or not the UK was the closest safe country.
That may, or may not, be why you chose not to give an answer.
It's absurd because obviously the answer is no - so why ask it?
They get accommodation and £35 per week grant through private companies hired by the government to look after them. Not technically benefits but still from the public purse. They can still access healthcare and education for their kids too. But it looks good to say they dont get to claim benefits.
We saw this on the News last night .Must say anyone I know reaction was Piss Off Merkel and mind your own business
That's appalling. The Irish government and people are just getting back on their feet after a very difficult time. Merkel needs to stop telling other countries what they need to do, she was even mouthing of at Australia a few months ago.
Unfortunately some people see the molestation of children an acceptable price to pay to ensure the multicultural dream is maintained.
Are you inferring I'm one of "some people"? It certainly looks that way. I would appreciate an answer to that question.
Just for the record I've never been stupid enough to have a multi cultural dream or ever supported unfettered immigration. Apart from the economic facts, human nature doesn't allow for such impossibilities. Nor do I think that anyone entering Europe this way should be allowed to stay.
They get accommodation and £35 per week grant through private companies hired by the government to look after them. Not technically benefits but still from the public purse. They can still access healthcare and education for their kids too. But it looks good to say they dont get to claim benefits.
That is what asylum seekers get - they are not illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants get no benefits so they have to find work.
Much of Greece speaks English as a second language especially the holiday destinations these migrants are rocking up too. They dont think Greece can look after them probably, tough sh*t. That's where they are and they are safe. What ever they have in Greece is still a million times better than being bombed in Syria.
If Greece cannot feed them or give them shelter then they are not safe though - which is one of the main reasons they leave camps in Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon. Of course they could be detained in Greece but that country would need support to maintain them. Better surely to ensure that the refugee centres in neighbouring countries have the facilities needed.
There's no decimal points in the table figures, merely whole numbers. But based on your interpretation, the USA has taken 4,761,000, whilst Afghanistan has taken 2556556000, using the same logic.
I think you might need to re-appraise your analysis somewhat.
I'm sorry but I can't debate with someone who hasn't even bothered to check that what they are quoting is consistent and accurate data.
My bad, it looks like I just looked at the wrong table - nothing to do with my interpretation, analysis or maths. You could have just said that.
Comments
If the decimal point is in the wrong place, presumably you still get the point about the relative figures between the countries.
Or maybe not, if your only response is about the decimal point.
Put it this way, if you were a refugee from North Africa, with some English, but no other second language.
Where would you head for out of:
A. USA
B. Canada
C. UK
D. New Zealand
That link is taking me to country of origin, not destination..
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG/countries
Does that one work?
It's not absurd though. Why do you think it is? Is it because the answer is obviously yes, or obviously no?
The argument is often made that migrants should stop in the closest safe country rather than continue on to the UK.
The question is perfectly reasonable, as I suspect most people would give a different answer depending on whether or not the UK was the closest safe country.
That may, or may not, be why you chose not to give an answer.
There's no decimal points in the table figures, merely whole numbers. But based on your interpretation, the USA has taken 4,761,000, whilst Afghanistan has taken 2556556000, using the same logic.
I think you might need to re-appraise your analysis somewhat.
I'm sorry but I can't debate with someone who hasn't even bothered to check that what they are quoting is consistent and accurate data.
I have already posted the correct table - I had to look twice myself because the one that was originally posted is where refugees come from, and I saw '142' next to the UK... it never occurred to me that there were any refugees *from* the UK.
Anyway, to repeat, here is the correct data table.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG/countries
Whatever was wrong with the table wasn't obvious.
Either way, you seem to be avoiding answering questions.
It was blindingly obvious. It's basic maths. There isn't even anything to debate.
I've pointed out the obvious mathematical flaw yet you are still arguing about it?
That's more like it. Thanks
So back to my question - why can't some of the other English speaking countries in the world accept more migrants. Relative to the respective sizes of the UK and USA, for example, the USA could take a lot more.
Much of Greece speaks English as a second language especially the holiday destinations these migrants are rocking up too. They dont think Greece can look after them probably, tough sh*t. That's where they are and they are safe. What ever they have in Greece is still a million times better than being bombed in Syria.
It's absurd because obviously the answer is no - so why ask it?
We saw this on the News last night .Must say anyone I know reaction was Piss Off Merkel and mind your own business
So how do they live?
They get accommodation and £35 per week grant through private companies hired by the government to look after them. Not technically benefits but still from the public purse. They can still access healthcare and education for their kids too. But it looks good to say they dont get to claim benefits.
That's appalling. The Irish government and people are just getting back on their feet after a very difficult time. Merkel needs to stop telling other countries what they need to do, she was even mouthing of at Australia a few months ago.
Did I say that? No. I was commenting on the fact that a scummy neo nazi had posted a video with the heading "illegal immigrants".
Don't be absurd! Is a question like that really necessary?
Are you inferring I'm one of "some people"? It certainly looks that way. I would appreciate an answer to that question.
Just for the record I've never been stupid enough to have a multi cultural dream or ever supported unfettered immigration. Apart from the economic facts, human nature doesn't allow for such impossibilities. Nor do I think that anyone entering Europe this way should be allowed to stay.
They're trying to get in via the Arctic circle now. ;-)
I agree. She's probably just damned furious because the EU can't force any country to do as she dictates.
Don't be absurd.
That is what asylum seekers get - they are not illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants get no benefits so they have to find work.
Austrian police find three children in critical condition in vehicle carrying 26 migrants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34095949
If Greece cannot feed them or give them shelter then they are not safe though - which is one of the main reasons they leave camps in Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon. Of course they could be detained in Greece but that country would need support to maintain them. Better surely to ensure that the refugee centres in neighbouring countries have the facilities needed.
Why the wink? It's hardly amusing.
This is bloody dreadful.
My bad, it looks like I just looked at the wrong table - nothing to do with my interpretation, analysis or maths. You could have just said that.
So looking at the correct table:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG/countries
Gives the following figures for :
US - 263,662
France - 232,487
Germany - 187,567
Canada - 160,349
UK - 126,055
New Zealand - 1,403
The end point seems to be pretty much the same.
I was interested to note that the UK number is dropping year on year, and the others are rising.