but they tend not to talk so much about the financial assistance that could offset that.
Fair enough, although I would suspect there is scope for more coverage on the website, and that such a report wouldn't get a sniff near the front of the paper compared to more negative and sensationalist stories.
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.
Are you seriously implying Greece cant keep these people anymore safe than a third world war torn country?
One of the migrants from Africa said he had left because he had no home, no education for his family. Why is it the responsibility of European governments to provide this and not his own?
You and anne keep talking about refugee facilities close to the country of origin but you could put them up in the Sweimeh Hilton and many would still want to get to Northern europe. They dont want to be there. They dont want to be in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Portugal, Hungary, Macedonia, Russia and a list of other countries.
They're trying to get in via the Arctic circle now. ;-)
I suppose if they follow such an arduous and long winded path, which would totally defeat the vast majority before they'd got even a quarter of the way, we ought to give them some credit for initiative and determination.
Unfortunately some people see the molestation of children an acceptable price to pay to ensure the multicultural dream is maintained.
That's like saying that some people see the murder of patients as an acceptable price to pay to ensure the NHS is maintained, because of what Harold Shipman did.
Fair enough, although I would suspect there is scope for more coverage on the website, and that such a report wouldn't get a sniff near the front of the paper compared to more negative and sensationalist stories.
They did do a piece about Angelina Jolie criticising the UN Security Council about their efforts. It seemed to concentrate more on the reaction to AJ rather than what she was saying though.
Are you seriously implying Greece cant keep these people anymore safe than a third world war torn country?
One of the migrants from Africa said he had left because he had no home, no education for his family. Why is it the responsibility of European governments to provide this and not his own?
You and anne keep talking about refugee facilities close to the country of origin but you could put them up in the Sweimeh Hilton and many would still want to get to Northern europe. They dont want to be there. They dont want to be in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Portugal, Hungary, Macedonia, Russia and a list of other countries.
Yes, why is the burden constantly falling on certain countries? Could it be because they are wealthy?
I keep looking at the vast amount of space in Mother Russia and thinking that there would be massive scope for resettlement right there. Entire new towns could be built which would have minimal impact on the Russian people themselves.
I wonder what Mr Putin's reaction would be if such an approach were made from outside.
the three children were taken to hospital suffering from severe dehydration.
Officials said their lives were no longer in danger but they are still in hospital.
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.
And virtually all of the UK speaks English as a first language.
If the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that the everyone should stop in the UK?
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.
I'm not convinced speaking the language is that compelling a factor of where they want to go tbh. A lot of it has been made on here, but I am sure whichever country gives them the most handouts takes priority over understanding the language.
Many migrants stick together once here anyway, hence the ghettoization of areas with high migrant populations, and they just speak their native tongue, not bothering to learn English.
In any case, we fall over backwards to accommodate them,with multi-language signs and leaflets for the services they need, and provide interpreters where necessary.
Are you seriously implying Greece cant keep these people anymore safe than a third world war torn country?
One of the migrants from Africa said he had left because he had no home, no education for his family. Why is it the responsibility of European governments to provide this and not his own?
You and anne keep talking about refugee facilities close to the country of origin but you could put them up in the Sweimeh Hilton and many would still want to get to Northern europe. They dont want to be there. They dont want to be in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Portugal, Hungary, Macedonia, Russia and a list of other countries.
I am saying that Greece doesn't have the money to do so.
A factor causing both economic migrants and those from conflict zones to travel is that they don't have a home and/or cannot get education for their family. Some are travelling to find those things elsewhere and will continue to do so unless they get those facilities in their countries and refugee camps. Yes, that means the developed/peaceful world helping them to do so (and helping improve economies in the developing world... and helping to resolve conflicts).
You say that won't work (despite the fact it is for millions and has in the past) - but if we don't solve those root problems, what would you suggest we actually do in order to stop the migrants?
Yes, why is the burden constantly falling on certain countries? Could it be because they are wealthy?
I keep looking at the vast amount of space in Mother Russia and thinking that there would be massive scope for resettlement right there. Entire new towns could be built which would have minimal impact on the Russian people themselves.
I wonder what Mr Putin's reaction would be if such an approach were made from outside.
Apart from the cost of building all these new towns, unless they could be built with pixie dust.
Similar to the other question about proximity, which you never did answer, or even say why you thought was absurd, if the UK was a poorer country, would you be arguing that more should come to here?
I don't think there is anything absurd about the questions. The only absurd thing would be that a lot of people would give different answers depending on the circumstances of the UK.
the three children were taken to hospital suffering from severe dehydration.
Officials said their lives were no longer in danger but they are still in hospital.
I see it's another E.European driver
Well, just as there are kind people who are helping refugees with food etc there are going to be those who see them as an economic opportunity for themselves. I just hope that the latter are given stiff sentences to act as a deterrent. Including manslaughter where people die.
I would argue they should be processed in the first country they arrive in, so yes.
If we are to believe the UK can't cope with the current numbers, if the UK was the nearest country, you would argue that the UK should the in many times more refugees?
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.
Thank you for your admission.
I did point out the error, but you initially responded by arguing about a non existent decimal point.
Anyway, that said, my argument still remains. There are countries in the world many times our size, including English speaking ones, who could easily take in a lot more more migrants than they currently do. There is no overarching reason for them to come here.
I am saying that Greece doesn't have the money to do so.
A factor causing both economic migrants and those from conflict zones to travel is that they don't have a home and/or cannot get education for their family. Some are travelling to find those things elsewhere and will continue to do so unless they get those facilities in their countries and refugee camps. Yes, that means the developed/peaceful world helping them to do so (and helping improve economies in the developing world... and helping to resolve conflicts).
You say that won't work (despite the fact it is for millions and has in the past) - but if we don't solve those root problems, what would you suggest we actually do in order to stop the migrants?
I am saying that there is not a bottomless pit of finance, unlimited space and resources. So it may have worked for millions but there are hundreds of millions needing help, not all strong enough to leg it to the med. We cant help them all. A huge portion of Africa, rural India, rural Pakistan, parts of Southern Asia, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, people in some areas of Sri lanka still dont have homes 10 years after the tsunami, the war torn Middle east, the list is endless. europe cannot help everyone at some point something has to give.
How do we stop the migrants? Ask the ones who will only be happy once they reach the UK and the other Northern European countries. They are the ones that will know what it will take to keep them where they are.
That surely has to be a good thing in view of the severe accommodation crisis we have.
I think it is a good thing blueblade - it means that we are managing the numbers better than we were. The rejection rate is improving as we get better at determining who is a genuine refugee and who is not - and there are more removals where the person is an economic migrant.
If we are to believe the UK can't cope with the current numbers, if the UK was the nearest country, you would argue that the UK should the in many times more refugees?
Honestly? Cross our heart and hope to die?
As David Lloyd used to say on Test Match Special
"If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle"
Rather than another tedious pretend scenario, why not stick to the actual situation as it is - there's plenty enough to discuss.
Apart from the cost of building all these new towns, unless they could be built with pixie dust.
Similar to the other question about proximity, which you never did answer, or even say why you thought was absurd, if the UK was a poorer country, would you be arguing that more should come to here?
I don't think there is anything absurd about the questions. The only absurd thing would be that a lot of people would give different answers depending on the circumstances of the UK.
Your question about them all coming to the UK if it was the nearest safe haven - presumably similar to Greece now - is a strawman, because it isn't the nearest country. So the point is wholly moot.
As for cost - well the cost of accommodation, food, fuel etc, has to come from somewhere, so why should Russia be exempt? Indeed, I'm sure the EU could help out with cost of buildings. It might even be an opportunity for Putin to acknowledge the EU as a force for good.
I am saying that there is not a bottomless pit of finance, unlimited space and resources. So it may have worked for millions but there are hundreds of millions needing help, not all strong enough to leg it to the med. We cant help them all. A huge portion of Africa, rural India, rural Pakistan, parts of Southern Asia, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, people in some areas of Sri lanka still dont have homes 10 years after the tsunami, the war torn Middle east, the list is endless. europe cannot help everyone at some point something has to give.
How do we stop the migrants? Ask the ones who will only be happy once they reach the UK and the other Northern European countries. They are the ones that will know what it will take to keep them where they are.
That's not really an answer is it. It's too late once they are here. Aside from detaining and deporting them to better camps/supported countries - what else can you think of to do?
I am not saying the solution will be easy, but I am very concerned that mass uncontrolled migration to the developing countries will undermine their economies and so make it harder to assist other parts of the world to develop - thus fuelling more migration, The answer for me is to maintain people, with homes; work and education; in the developing world so they can grow economies there - allowing immigration only where it is needed and wanted.
Your question about them all coming to the UK if it was the nearest safe haven - presumably similar to Greece now, is a strawman, because it isn't the nearest country. So the point is wholly moot.
As for cost - well the cost of accommodation, food, fuel etc, has to come from somewhere, so why should Russia be exempt? Indeed, I'm sure the EU could help out with cost of buildings. It might even be an opportunity for Putin to acknowledge the EU as a force for good.
Pixie Dust? - no it's called bricks and mortar.
Its not a strawman, its a hypothetical question.
It may well be moot, but I am still interested to know if people would think the same were the UK the nearest safe country is entirely reasonable.
And even if it is moot, you must have an opinion - so why not say what it is? It may or may not be that you won't answer it because doing so puts you between a rock and a hard place.
Answer yes, and you contradict your given view that the UK is already at stretching point and shouldn't have to take in any more than it already does. Answer no, and you reveal yourself as being a hypocrite with double standards. I think both know that's about the size of it.
I'm sure the cost for fuel, accommodation does have to come from somewhere. But you are talking about huge costs of building entire new towns, and all the infrastructure to support those new towns over and above those costs.
In an ideal world where everything was equal, I'm the cost of refugees would be spread equally, but unfortunately the world isn't perfect.
Comments
Fair enough, although I would suspect there is scope for more coverage on the website, and that such a report wouldn't get a sniff near the front of the paper compared to more negative and sensationalist stories.
Are you seriously implying Greece cant keep these people anymore safe than a third world war torn country?
One of the migrants from Africa said he had left because he had no home, no education for his family. Why is it the responsibility of European governments to provide this and not his own?
You and anne keep talking about refugee facilities close to the country of origin but you could put them up in the Sweimeh Hilton and many would still want to get to Northern europe. They dont want to be there. They dont want to be in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Portugal, Hungary, Macedonia, Russia and a list of other countries.
I suppose if they follow such an arduous and long winded path, which would totally defeat the vast majority before they'd got even a quarter of the way, we ought to give them some credit for initiative and determination.
The numbers are negligible anyway.
That's like saying that some people see the murder of patients as an acceptable price to pay to ensure the NHS is maintained, because of what Harold Shipman did.
i.e. completely ridiculous.
They did do a piece about Angelina Jolie criticising the UN Security Council about their efforts. It seemed to concentrate more on the reaction to AJ rather than what she was saying though.
Yes, why is the burden constantly falling on certain countries? Could it be because they are wealthy?
I keep looking at the vast amount of space in Mother Russia and thinking that there would be massive scope for resettlement right there. Entire new towns could be built which would have minimal impact on the Russian people themselves.
I wonder what Mr Putin's reaction would be if such an approach were made from outside.
Thankfully it looks like they're going to be ok
the three children were taken to hospital suffering from severe dehydration.
Officials said their lives were no longer in danger but they are still in hospital.
I see it's another E.European driver
And virtually all of the UK speaks English as a first language.
If the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that the everyone should stop in the UK?
Many migrants stick together once here anyway, hence the ghettoization of areas with high migrant populations, and they just speak their native tongue, not bothering to learn English.
In any case, we fall over backwards to accommodate them,with multi-language signs and leaflets for the services they need, and provide interpreters where necessary.
I am saying that Greece doesn't have the money to do so.
A factor causing both economic migrants and those from conflict zones to travel is that they don't have a home and/or cannot get education for their family. Some are travelling to find those things elsewhere and will continue to do so unless they get those facilities in their countries and refugee camps. Yes, that means the developed/peaceful world helping them to do so (and helping improve economies in the developing world... and helping to resolve conflicts).
You say that won't work (despite the fact it is for millions and has in the past) - but if we don't solve those root problems, what would you suggest we actually do in order to stop the migrants?
That surely has to be a good thing in view of the severe accommodation crisis we have.
I would argue they should be processed in the first country they arrive in, so yes.
Apart from the cost of building all these new towns, unless they could be built with pixie dust.
Similar to the other question about proximity, which you never did answer, or even say why you thought was absurd, if the UK was a poorer country, would you be arguing that more should come to here?
I don't think there is anything absurd about the questions. The only absurd thing would be that a lot of people would give different answers depending on the circumstances of the UK.
Well, just as there are kind people who are helping refugees with food etc there are going to be those who see them as an economic opportunity for themselves. I just hope that the latter are given stiff sentences to act as a deterrent. Including manslaughter where people die.
If we are to believe the UK can't cope with the current numbers, if the UK was the nearest country, you would argue that the UK should the in many times more refugees?
Honestly? Cross our heart and hope to die?
Most folk with a modicum of a sense of humour, would give a wry smile at the thought of Syrians invading Europe via the Arctic Circle.
Thank you for your admission.
I did point out the error, but you initially responded by arguing about a non existent decimal point.
Anyway, that said, my argument still remains. There are countries in the world many times our size, including English speaking ones, who could easily take in a lot more more migrants than they currently do. There is no overarching reason for them to come here.
I am saying that there is not a bottomless pit of finance, unlimited space and resources. So it may have worked for millions but there are hundreds of millions needing help, not all strong enough to leg it to the med. We cant help them all. A huge portion of Africa, rural India, rural Pakistan, parts of Southern Asia, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, people in some areas of Sri lanka still dont have homes 10 years after the tsunami, the war torn Middle east, the list is endless. europe cannot help everyone at some point something has to give.
How do we stop the migrants? Ask the ones who will only be happy once they reach the UK and the other Northern European countries. They are the ones that will know what it will take to keep them where they are.
I think it is a good thing blueblade - it means that we are managing the numbers better than we were. The rejection rate is improving as we get better at determining who is a genuine refugee and who is not - and there are more removals where the person is an economic migrant.
"If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle"
Rather than another tedious pretend scenario, why not stick to the actual situation as it is - there's plenty enough to discuss.
Greece is the nearest - tough on them.
Your question about them all coming to the UK if it was the nearest safe haven - presumably similar to Greece now - is a strawman, because it isn't the nearest country. So the point is wholly moot.
As for cost - well the cost of accommodation, food, fuel etc, has to come from somewhere, so why should Russia be exempt? Indeed, I'm sure the EU could help out with cost of buildings. It might even be an opportunity for Putin to acknowledge the EU as a force for good.
Pixie Dust? - no it's called bricks and mortar.
That's the attitude.
You carry right on with your double standard and hypocrisy.
That's not really an answer is it. It's too late once they are here. Aside from detaining and deporting them to better camps/supported countries - what else can you think of to do?
I am not saying the solution will be easy, but I am very concerned that mass uncontrolled migration to the developing countries will undermine their economies and so make it harder to assist other parts of the world to develop - thus fuelling more migration, The answer for me is to maintain people, with homes; work and education; in the developing world so they can grow economies there - allowing immigration only where it is needed and wanted.
Tough on who ? Greece is buckling and unable to feed its own . Why should they carry this burden now too ?
Its not a strawman, its a hypothetical question.
It may well be moot, but I am still interested to know if people would think the same were the UK the nearest safe country is entirely reasonable.
And even if it is moot, you must have an opinion - so why not say what it is? It may or may not be that you won't answer it because doing so puts you between a rock and a hard place.
Answer yes, and you contradict your given view that the UK is already at stretching point and shouldn't have to take in any more than it already does. Answer no, and you reveal yourself as being a hypocrite with double standards. I think both know that's about the size of it.
I'm sure the cost for fuel, accommodation does have to come from somewhere. But you are talking about huge costs of building entire new towns, and all the infrastructure to support those new towns over and above those costs.
In an ideal world where everything was equal, I'm the cost of refugees would be spread equally, but unfortunately the world isn't perfect.