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.
It's not too late. Ask them why the only answer to their problem is coming to Northern Europe and then act on it. If we dont know what the actual reasons are, how can we provide solutions in the other countries. It seems some people are very good at guessing for them but the only answer is to ask them. They are the only ones that can guide how we proceed. I think many would be scared to ask as they dont want to hear their answers.
No double standards or hypocrisy here, as I haven't joined in your game and given an opinion on 'what if the UK was the closest'
I prefer to discuss the reality of a situation, rather than go round in circles playing 'what ifs' with someone.
As above, I think we both know that you just don't want to answer, because neither answer shows you in a good light, and you are just hiding behind this notion of the reality of the situation.
If the reality of the situation is the number of people coming to the UK, do you also have an issue with people discussion the "what ifs" regarding more immigrants going to other countries, or "what if' we stopped as many immigrants coming to the UK.
As above, I think we both know that you just don't want to answer, because neither answer shows you in a good light, and you are just hiding behind this notion of the reality of the situation.
If the reality of the situation is the number of people coming to the UK, do you also have an issue with people discussion the "what ifs" regarding more immigrants going to other country, or "what if' we stopped as many immigrants coming to the UK.
Of course not.
The reality of the situation is the UK is not the first country so it's irrelevant. People have answered you.
Why the hell should we deal with anything other than the reality of the situation?
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?
It seems we no longer have anyone capable of dealing effectively with humanitarian crisis in Europe. What the hell would happen to us all if we were ever in crisis again?. An embarrassing indictment against the 2nd wealthiest continent in the world.
What would happen if we were a point of entry or a neighbouring country? I'm sure there'd be rejoicing if we were left to fund it all and have to deal with the vast numbers on a daily basis, indefinitely.
Greece, Italy and Malta certainly don't have the funds to deal with this alone.
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.
I already answered yes,why are you accusing me of not answering? post #4538 You then asked me to cross my heart...what a lot of nonsense.
So it actually doesn't speak volumes at all!
Sorry - you replied to a reply to another poster.
Yes, you answered that you thought in that situation the UK should take in many times than it already does, which was an interesting view if your view is also that the UK is currently taking in more than it should.
It would be interesting to know why, in that situation, you would think it right that the UK bears the economic and financial brunt of that mass immigration rather than be shared by other European countries?
I think you're the only one who did answer though - others seem less keen to do so.
Not a hypocrite because I haven't also argued that all immigrants should stop in the nearest safe country.
My view is the consistent view that whatever the country, it seems unreasonable to expect the closest safe country to exclusively bear the economic and financial burden.
It's absurd because obviously the answer is no - so why ask it?
So why do you keep asking me?
Look you are persisting with irrelevant strawman questions whilst forgetting they've already been answered. You are attributing things to me which I haven't said, and to add to that you posted the wrong table earlier, and initially insisted it was correct.
Nor have I, but I did answer your question at post No 4511:-
So why do you keep asking me?
There does seem to be a general view on your side of the discussion that too many are coming to the UK, and the question of why migrants don't just stop in the first safe country seems to be common.
You expressed an opinion of the question, but you didn't actually answer it.
Or said what makes it absurd.
I keep asking because I'm interested to know what your answer is.
Because I think it would be interesting to understand people's general views on immigration without factoring in the UK's role in it, which is often the point at which it gets a bit heated.
There does seem to be a general view on your side of the discussion that too many are coming to the UK, and the question of why migrants don't just stop in the first safe country seems to be common.
You expressed an opinion of the question, but you didn't actually answer it.
Or said what makes it absurd.
I answered no, as per your simple yes or no reproduced above?
What more do you want?
All due respect, calico pie, but you are not making any sense, and you seem to be forgetting what you have already posted, as well as the answers to your questions.
I'd either give it up, or maybe go into greater detail yourself as to why you answered "no" to your own question.
My opinion about them is the same as it always was. Just because your country has descended into a state of turmoil doesn't give you a free pass to the country of your choosing. If the UK descended into a state of war my first port of call would be France... i wouldn't be eyeing up the US, Australia or New Zealand.
It's not too late. Ask them why the only answer to their problem is coming to Northern Europe and then act on it. If we dont know what the actual reasons are, how can we provide solutions in the other countries. It seems some people are very good at guessing for them but the only answer is to ask them. They are the only ones that can guide how we proceed. I think many would be scared to ask as they dont want to hear their answers.
They have said - they want the chance for work; education for their families and a future - because these things are rarely available in refugee camps and difficult in developing countries. It is all in the various reports that have been written and if you look on sites like the Red Cross or UNHCR you can read them and the interviews with migrants that informed them . I am not suggesting anything novel - these are strategies that have already been shown to work. The UNHCR has a triple strategy - repatriation; resettlement; integration... ie helping people to manage before eventually going home; finding them legal immigration to another country; or integrating them into the community of the country they escaped to. The exact same strategy adopted between 1945 and 1955 - with the c15 million displaced persons that were in Europe. It worked then, and it can work now.
Look you are persisting with irrelevant strawman questions whilst forgetting they've already been answered. You are attributing things to me which I haven't said, and to add to that you posted the wrong table earlier, and initially insisted it was correct.
Its not a strawman, assuming a strawman is where someone tries to refute a different argument to the one being made.
The question here involves a single, consistent argument, i.e. people's views on whether or not immigrants should stop in the nearest safe country.
I am suggesting that many people would give different answers depending on whether or not the UK was the nearest safe country. But that isn't two different argument, designed to catch you out, which is what a strawman is, AFAIK.
So I posted the wrong link - I made a mistake, you got me.
I don't think I insisted it was correct - once I realised it was the wrong link, I acknowledged that.
The question here involves a single, consistent argument, i.e. people's views on whether or not immigrants should stop in the nearest safe country.
I am suggesting that many people would give different answers depending on whether or not the UK was the nearest safe country. But that isn't two different argument, designed to catch you out, which is what a strawman is, AFAIK.
Well I've answered no, you've answered no.
I think it perfectly reasonable that you expand on why you answered no.
They have said - they want the chance for work; education for their families and a future - because these things are rarely available in refugee camps and difficult in developing countries. It is all in the various reports that have been written and if you look on sites like the Red Cross or UNHCR you can read them and the interviews with migrants that informed them . I am not suggesting anything novel - these are strategies that have already been shown to work. The UNHCR has a triple strategy - repatriation; resettlement; integration... ie helping people to manage before eventually going home; finding them legal immigration to another country; or integrating them into the community of the country they escaped to. The exact same strategy adopted between 1945 and 1955 - with the c15 million displaced persons that were in Europe. It worked then, and it can work now.
There's a very moving article on various media outlets today about a Syrian man supporting his family by selling pens in Beirut. He doesn't want to come here, he wants Syria to be made safe and to go home. The difference between him and people like him as opposed to those who feel their only answer is coming to Northern Europe has to be looked at.
You and anne keep insisting that the processes 70 years ago would work today without acknowledging that the world is a very different place not least population increases and reduction of available space. There is also the matter of differences in culture that wasnt an issue then. How many Jews refused food just after the war as it wasnt kosher? Maybe the reason there are few people capable of dealing with this crisis is because it is overwhelming and there are no answers that will make real impact on the sheer numbers of people who will replace those being helped.
And given the problems of resettling displaced people in Palestine still resounds today, I'm not sure all of it was a success.
I think it perfectly reasonable that you expand on why you answered no.
Sorry - looking back I can saw that post now. Its a fast moving thread, so apologies for that.
It might be obvious to me, and obvious to you, but of the two people who have offered an answer, one said yes, and one said no.
And in these discussions many people do argue that people should stop in the nearest safe country, so the answer "no" isn't obvious to them. Unless they think people should stop in the nearest safe country, so long as the nearest country is not the UK.
I would answer no because it seems an unfair burden to place on a single country, especially if that country can ill afford to take on that burden.
My opinion about them is the same as it always was. Just because your country has descended into a state of turmoil doesn't give you a free pass to the country of your choosing. If the UK descended into a state of war my first port of call would be France... i wouldn't be eyeing up the US, Australia or New Zealand.
And if France could not cope, or the local population became hostile because of the numbers... what would you do?
There's a very moving article on various media outlets today about a Syrian man supporting his family by selling pens in Beirut. He doesn't want to come here, he wants Syria to be made safe and to go home. The difference between him and people like him as opposed to those who feel their only answer is coming to Northern Europe has to be looked at.
You and anne keep insisting that the processes 70 years ago would work today without acknowledging that the world is a very different place not least population increases and reduction of available space. Maybe the reason there are few people capable of dealing with this crisis is because it is overwhelming and there are no answers that will make real impact on the sheer numbers of people who will replace those being helped.
I think he is a perfect example of why people leave - because they want more for their children. Many of them have already tried, like him, to manage in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey - but they cannot make enough to feed and educate their families - so they try to find somewhere that offers that. Do you really blame them?
As for 1945 - the world had just finished a huge war and it was recognised that unless the displaced people were repatriated or resettled we would not recover from the war. That is why the effort was made then and it is why we must make the same effort now. It is about success for all of us, not just the displaced people.
It isn't because it is overwhelming at all - it is perfectly possible to do this but politicians are not getting on with it - preferring to shout 'not here' or 'we can't afford it' or 'they should do it, not us'. My view is that there isn't a choice but to act and you either accept that people will come to Europe and you look after the ones that make it or you pay for it to be managed elsewhere. Doing nothing isn't a viable option.
What about Belgium or Luxembourg or Spain.. would you think of moving there? Use that French or Spanish you learned in school?
LIke i said. I would go to the first safe space i could find - i wouldn't consider it a free ticket to get to my preferred place. So i would go to France... problems there, Spain, the Netherlands or Germany.
Comments
I prefer to discuss the reality of a situation, rather than go round in circles playing 'what ifs' with someone.
It's not too late. Ask them why the only answer to their problem is coming to Northern Europe and then act on it. If we dont know what the actual reasons are, how can we provide solutions in the other countries. It seems some people are very good at guessing for them but the only answer is to ask them. They are the only ones that can guide how we proceed. I think many would be scared to ask as they dont want to hear their answers.
As above, I think we both know that you just don't want to answer, because neither answer shows you in a good light, and you are just hiding behind this notion of the reality of the situation.
If the reality of the situation is the number of people coming to the UK, do you also have an issue with people discussion the "what ifs" regarding more immigrants going to other countries, or "what if' we stopped as many immigrants coming to the UK.
Of course not.
The reality of the situation is the UK is not the first country so it's irrelevant. People have answered you.
Why the hell should we deal with anything other than the reality of the situation?
I'm not asking anyone to deal with anything.
Its a simple enough question - if the UK was the nearest safe country, would you argue that everyone should stop in the UK?
The possible answers are either "yes" or "no".
You must have an opinion - I'm interested to know what you and others think.
Its up to you if you answer or not, but know that not answering speaks volumes.
I already answered yes,why are you accusing me of not answering? post #4538 You then asked me to cross my heart...what a lot of nonsense.
So it actually doesn't speak volumes at all!
It seems we no longer have anyone capable of dealing effectively with humanitarian crisis in Europe. What the hell would happen to us all if we were ever in crisis again?. An embarrassing indictment against the 2nd wealthiest continent in the world.
What would happen if we were a point of entry or a neighbouring country? I'm sure there'd be rejoicing if we were left to fund it all and have to deal with the vast numbers on a daily basis, indefinitely.
Greece, Italy and Malta certainly don't have the funds to deal with this alone.
Well you answered no, so what does that make you?
Sorry - you replied to a reply to another poster.
Yes, you answered that you thought in that situation the UK should take in many times than it already does, which was an interesting view if your view is also that the UK is currently taking in more than it should.
It would be interesting to know why, in that situation, you would think it right that the UK bears the economic and financial brunt of that mass immigration rather than be shared by other European countries?
I think you're the only one who did answer though - others seem less keen to do so.
Not a hypocrite because I haven't also argued that all immigrants should stop in the nearest safe country.
My view is the consistent view that whatever the country, it seems unreasonable to expect the closest safe country to exclusively bear the economic and financial burden.
Nor have I, but I did answer your question at post No 4511:-
So why do you keep asking me?
Look you are persisting with irrelevant strawman questions whilst forgetting they've already been answered. You are attributing things to me which I haven't said, and to add to that you posted the wrong table earlier, and initially insisted it was correct.
There does seem to be a general view on your side of the discussion that too many are coming to the UK, and the question of why migrants don't just stop in the first safe country seems to be common.
You expressed an opinion of the question, but you didn't actually answer it.
Or said what makes it absurd.
I keep asking because I'm interested to know what your answer is.
Because I think it would be interesting to understand people's general views on immigration without factoring in the UK's role in it, which is often the point at which it gets a bit heated.
I answered no, as per your simple yes or no reproduced above?
What more do you want?
All due respect, calico pie, but you are not making any sense, and you seem to be forgetting what you have already posted, as well as the answers to your questions.
I'd either give it up, or maybe go into greater detail yourself as to why you answered "no" to your own question.
They have said - they want the chance for work; education for their families and a future - because these things are rarely available in refugee camps and difficult in developing countries. It is all in the various reports that have been written and if you look on sites like the Red Cross or UNHCR you can read them and the interviews with migrants that informed them . I am not suggesting anything novel - these are strategies that have already been shown to work. The UNHCR has a triple strategy - repatriation; resettlement; integration... ie helping people to manage before eventually going home; finding them legal immigration to another country; or integrating them into the community of the country they escaped to. The exact same strategy adopted between 1945 and 1955 - with the c15 million displaced persons that were in Europe. It worked then, and it can work now.
Its not a strawman, assuming a strawman is where someone tries to refute a different argument to the one being made.
The question here involves a single, consistent argument, i.e. people's views on whether or not immigrants should stop in the nearest safe country.
I am suggesting that many people would give different answers depending on whether or not the UK was the nearest safe country. But that isn't two different argument, designed to catch you out, which is what a strawman is, AFAIK.
So I posted the wrong link - I made a mistake, you got me.
I don't think I insisted it was correct - once I realised it was the wrong link, I acknowledged that.
Well I've answered no, you've answered no.
I think it perfectly reasonable that you expand on why you answered no.
There's a very moving article on various media outlets today about a Syrian man supporting his family by selling pens in Beirut. He doesn't want to come here, he wants Syria to be made safe and to go home. The difference between him and people like him as opposed to those who feel their only answer is coming to Northern Europe has to be looked at.
You and anne keep insisting that the processes 70 years ago would work today without acknowledging that the world is a very different place not least population increases and reduction of available space. There is also the matter of differences in culture that wasnt an issue then. How many Jews refused food just after the war as it wasnt kosher? Maybe the reason there are few people capable of dealing with this crisis is because it is overwhelming and there are no answers that will make real impact on the sheer numbers of people who will replace those being helped.
And given the problems of resettling displaced people in Palestine still resounds today, I'm not sure all of it was a success.
Sorry - looking back I can saw that post now. Its a fast moving thread, so apologies for that.
It might be obvious to me, and obvious to you, but of the two people who have offered an answer, one said yes, and one said no.
And in these discussions many people do argue that people should stop in the nearest safe country, so the answer "no" isn't obvious to them. Unless they think people should stop in the nearest safe country, so long as the nearest country is not the UK.
I would answer no because it seems an unfair burden to place on a single country, especially if that country can ill afford to take on that burden.
And if France could not cope, or the local population became hostile because of the numbers... what would you do?
Well i wouldn't strap myself into a dinghy and try and sail the bloody atlantic thats for sure.
I think he is a perfect example of why people leave - because they want more for their children. Many of them have already tried, like him, to manage in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey - but they cannot make enough to feed and educate their families - so they try to find somewhere that offers that. Do you really blame them?
As for 1945 - the world had just finished a huge war and it was recognised that unless the displaced people were repatriated or resettled we would not recover from the war. That is why the effort was made then and it is why we must make the same effort now. It is about success for all of us, not just the displaced people.
It isn't because it is overwhelming at all - it is perfectly possible to do this but politicians are not getting on with it - preferring to shout 'not here' or 'we can't afford it' or 'they should do it, not us'. My view is that there isn't a choice but to act and you either accept that people will come to Europe and you look after the ones that make it or you pay for it to be managed elsewhere. Doing nothing isn't a viable option.
What about Belgium or Luxembourg or Spain.. would you think of moving there? Use that French or Spanish you learned in school?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215330/Thank-God-safe-Relieved-migrants-wash-shores-Kos-perilous-crossing-s-long-way-go.html
The little boy in the second photo down just breaks my heart. What's going on in the Gambia?
LIke i said. I would go to the first safe space i could find - i wouldn't consider it a free ticket to get to my preferred place. So i would go to France... problems there, Spain, the Netherlands or Germany.