Europe is part of the World! I am talking about the overall responsibilty of the UNHCR.
Ok. Let's do it in bite size chunks.
For the 50 countries in which the UNHCR alone are conducting Refugee Status Determination operations, not the government, do you have any difficulty in understanding that the UNHCR have responsibilty for the Refugee status of tens of thousands of Asylum seekers?
Yes or no.
Let's do it in one chunk. The thread is about the migrant crisis in Europe in which the UNHCR afaik isn't involved or if it is it is being very quiet about it. If you wish to discuss what happens elsewhere in the world and the role of the UNHCR then start a thread on it.
Let's do it in one chunk. The thread is about the migrant crisis in Europe in which the UNHCR afaik isn't involved or if it is it is being very quiet about it. If you wish to discuss what happens elsewhere in the world and the role of the UNHCR then start a thread on it.
For goodness sake....I am getting to Europe.
So thats a Yes then.
Now turning to other countries (in Europe) in which the government conduct RSD operations.
If a country (in Europe) is unable - for whatever reason - to conduct it's own Refugee Status Determination operations, do you accept that the provider of RSD Operations is now the UNHCR - period - because the UNHCR are the default provider?
For goodness sake....I am getting to Europe.
So thats a Yes then.
Now turning to other countries (in Europe) in which the government conduct RSD operations.
If a country (in Europe) is unable - for whatever reason - to conduct it's own Refugee Status Determination operations, do you accept that the provider of RSD Operations is now the UNHCR - period - because the UNHCR are the default provider?
With respect, your pedantics are adding nothing to the discussion, other than "Oh Landis is really clever" which of course, you aren't. You seem to deliberately enjoy arguing.
Agreed (all) but with one caveat (BIB). Merkel has tried and credit to her for trying. It's just I don't think her stance is what the rest want to do.
True about Merkel. I agree, but BIB: That's because her short-term solution isn't a practical answer to what is likely to be a long-term problem over time. And that's the problem with our current leaders in the EU and over the pond in the US: always more bothered by and concerned with the election cycle and votes.
The only reason Cameron will not dare let tens of thousands of people in, as Cooper et al suggest, is obvious: the EU referendum and the likelihood he will lose - winning the referendum will be his lasting legacy (and given what happened during the Scottish referendum, it is easy to see how he will run scared of that); his broken and impossible promise to meet his immigration pledge (even though there is a difference between "asylum" and "immigration", for Joe Public it will always be about numbers coming in and settling in some form or other. A lot of voters don't care for semantics); probably Osborne - if he wins the Tory leadership - yakking in his ear not wanting Cameron leaving him with a plateful of cr@p that he has to deal with come 2020; and Cameron only has a 12-seat majority - the Eurosceptic wing of his party just won't have it, any of it.
For goodness sake....I am getting to Europe.
So thats a Yes then.
Now turning to other countries (in Europe) in which the government conduct RSD operations.
If a country (in Europe) is unable - for whatever reason - to conduct it's own Refugee Status Determination operations, do you accept that the provider of RSD Operations is now the UNHCR - period - because the UNHCR are the default provider?
LOL. You really are a hoot, these people appear to land, don't seek asylum until they can travel to where it is they want to live and all you can do is witter on about the UNHCR which has nothing at all to do with the crisis. Have a nice evening.
With respect, your pedantics are adding nothing to the discussion, other than "Oh Landis is really clever" which of course, you aren't. You seem to deliberately enjoy arguing.
I am just following the conversation. Most of the forum is an argument of one form or another. If jmclaugh continues to argue that UNHCR don't have an overall responsibilty for Refugees (when obviously they do) what would you expect me to do other than demonstrate that clearly they do have overall responsibility by giving examples of the UNHCR taking responsibility.
Or....he could withdraw. Oh! He just did. Funny that!
And if there is an argument.....I didn't start it. No I am not "really clever". I am not sure what you think a Political forum is for, or why you are even making a post that has nothing to do with the thread.
Checkout the thread title. This conversation is 100% bang on topic. If the crisis deepens.....and a country disputes a UNHCR ruling which says that a thousand asylum seekers do have valid claims for Refugee Status, the crisis could worsen.
Just had to watch that again. I had to laugh at the highlights, eye liner, lip gloss, trendy sunglasses again!
Her journey has cost her 3000 euros they reckon and taken two weeks. No way is she poor.
Did it all look a bit staged to you? I watched it again this morning and I think the whole thing has been set up by the reporter. Are the Beeb now faking stuff to get a good story?
True about Merkel. I agree, but BIB: That's because her short-term solution isn't a practical answer to what is likely to be a long-term problem over time. And that's the problem with our current leaders in the EU and over the pond in the US: always more bothered by and concerned with the election cycle and votes.
The only reason Cameron will not dare let tens of thousands of people in, as Cooper et al suggest, is obvious: the EU referendum and the likelihood he will lose - winning the referendum will be his lasting legacy (and given what happened during the Scottish referendum, it is easy to see how he will run scared of that); his broken and impossible promise to meet his immigration pledge (even though there is a difference between "asylum" and "immigration", for Joe Public it will always be about numbers coming in and settling in some form or other. A lot of voters don't care for semantics); probably Osborne - if he wins the Tory leadership - yakking in his ear not wanting Cameron leaving him with a plateful of cr@p that he has to deal with come 2020; and Cameron only has a 12-seat majority - the Eurosceptic wing of his party just won't have it, any of it.
Agreed again and I just cannot see anything getting better in the near or far future, with the exception of the usual winter slow down. The issue of migration may just define the politics of this and/or the next generation.
Agreed again and I just cannot see anything getting better in the near or far future, with the exception of the usual winter slow down. The issue of migration may just define the politics of this and/or the next generation.
I agree, but there needs to be a properly established balance about what is "concern for the good of the UK" and what is "racism"
at the moment, any public talk of immigration is deemed racist, and that is wrong - a lot of people are genuinely concerned about the state of the UK post-influx of large quantities of immigrants from foreign lands. the UK has a lot of countryside, but that natural beauty is potentially up for development if the Government decide that we need to build new homes and towns to accommodate vast amounts of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. what is best for the UK? a natural, unspoiled landscape of forests and hills, or a large conurbation just to house people who decided they've had enough of their homeland and want to come and live here?
I have nothing against immigration as a legal system, if I want to go and live in New York, there are legal channels to do so. I can't however, decide to wake up tomorrow and board a plane to New York and immediately claim asylum as soon as I land at JFK. For one, my claim would probably be rejected outright on the grounds that I left a safe country, unless my claim is against the UK. Then the US would decide whether I should have moved to Ireland or another EU country rather than the US.
Either way, I'm not going to have an easy time trying to convince the US to let me stay there and live in New York, especially not if I expected them to provide shelter for me as well!
So why should any other country, the UK included, be any different in their immigration policies? Are the US inherently racist for having strict processes in place to prevent a mass influx of people who "want a better life, so decided to go to the place they would like to live in and ask for it"? I say the US are quite sensible, so why should the UK or Europe be any different?
Germany murdered millions of Jews during the 1940s, so there is obviously some form of national guilt driving them to want to take in refugees as some sort of atonement for the Holocaust. Likewise, I suspect a lot of European countries are harbouring some form of guilt for not putting up enough of a fight when Germany invaded them (the French still harbour a grudge that the UK stood against Germany whilst Paris bent the knee) so I suspect a lot of European sentiment towards these refugees is stemming back, in many ways, to the childhoods of the leaders of those countries who saw their families in post-war Europe, and don't want the same kind of "guilt" on their own consciences.
However.... what we are discussing here is not legal migration - it is illegal and therefore we should, like Hungary and the Eastern Europeans, follow the law, if we do not apply the law equally then why do we even have a law?
Immigration is a major political issue, and one that I agree may define this generation of politics, but I think we need to be sensible about why people are upset by it - a country's national culture is threatened once a large influx of people move in, bringing with them their own customs, foods and religions. Pretty much every town in the UK has at least one "sklep" on the street now, just like there are a lot of Asian supermarkets on high streets, so large scale immigration DOES bring a change, and it is understandable that many people are afraid of what that change may be, especially if the people coming are not coming to jobs or to work, how will they financially support themselves? I know it's a major topic of discussion in my area that people are not happy that migrants are given money (UK taxpayers money) to help them whilst they cannot work, yet UK taxes increase when the Government runs out.... so we're giving "free" money to the new people, yet expecting the citizens to pay more to fund the system.
Hardly fair, and rightly a topic for discussion yet as soon as someone says "Let's talk about...." there are a hundred fingers pointed and raised voices saying "RACIST!!!" so until we have a sensible conversation, like proper adults, then I'm afraid this will never go away and the anti-immigration sentiment of the public will continue to fester unchecked
I agree, but there needs to be a properly established balance about what is "concern for the good of the UK" and what is "racism"
at the moment, any public talk of immigration is deemed racist, and that is wrong - a lot of people are genuinely concerned about the state of the UK post-influx of large quantities of immigrants from foreign lands. the UK has a lot of countryside, but that natural beauty is potentially up for development if the Government decide that we need to build new homes and towns to accommodate vast amounts of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. what is best for the UK? a natural, unspoiled landscape of forests and hills, or a large conurbation just to house people who decided they've had enough of their homeland and want to come and live here?
I have nothing against immigration as a legal system, if I want to go and live in New York, there are legal channels to do so. I can't however, decide to wake up tomorrow and board a plane to New York and immediately claim asylum as soon as I land at JFK. For one, my claim would probably be rejected outright on the grounds that I left a safe country, unless my claim is against the UK. Then the US would decide whether I should have moved to Ireland or another EU country rather than the US.
Either way, I'm not going to have an easy time trying to convince the US to let me stay there and live in New York, especially not if I expected them to provide shelter for me as well!
So why should any other country, the UK included, be any different in their immigration policies? Are the US inherently racist for having strict processes in place to prevent a mass influx of people who "want a better life, so decided to go to the place they would like to live in and ask for it"? I say the US are quite sensible, so why should the UK or Europe be any different?
Germany murdered millions of Jews during the 1940s, so there is obviously some form of national guilt driving them to want to take in refugees as some sort of atonement for the Holocaust. Likewise, I suspect a lot of European countries are harbouring some form of guilt for not putting up enough of a fight when Germany invaded them (the French still harbour a grudge that the UK stood against Germany whilst Paris bent the knee) so I suspect a lot of European sentiment towards these refugees is stemming back, in many ways, to the childhoods of the leaders of those countries who saw their families in post-war Europe, and don't want the same kind of "guilt" on their own consciences.
However.... what we are discussing here is not legal migration - it is illegal and therefore we should, like Hungary and the Eastern Europeans, follow the law, if we do not apply the law equally then why do we even have a law?
Immigration is a major political issue, and one that I agree may define this generation of politics, but I think we need to be sensible about why people are upset by it - a country's national culture is threatened once a large influx of people move in, bringing with them their own customs, foods and religions. Pretty much every town in the UK has at least one "sklep" on the street now, just like there are a lot of Asian supermarkets on high streets, so large scale immigration DOES bring a change, and it is understandable that many people are afraid of what that change may be, especially if the people coming are not coming to jobs or to work, how will they financially support themselves? I know it's a major topic of discussion in my area that people are not happy that migrants are given money (UK taxpayers money) to help them whilst they cannot work, yet UK taxes increase when the Government runs out.... so we're giving "free" money to the new people, yet expecting the citizens to pay more to fund the system.
Hardly fair, and rightly a topic for discussion yet as soon as someone says "Let's talk about...." there are a hundred fingers pointed and raised voices saying "RACIST!!!" so until we have a sensible conversation, like proper adults, then I'm afraid this will never go away and the anti-immigration sentiment of the public will continue to fester unchecked
Agreed too. Both 'sides' of the argument are equally right I feel also. Humanitarian (even economic, who are the west to tell others they cannot have our trappings) vs Tribal (bring in the animals, everyone behind the stockade, shut the gate, it is after all a fundamental and successful survival technique which is ingrained into human DNA (so to speak)). Which "ratio / venn diagram" solution or combination of solutions which basically encompass the basic two routes, makes for equally interesting and worrying times.
Did it all look a bit staged to you? I watched it again this morning and I think the whole thing has been set up by the reporter. Are the Beeb now faking stuff to get a good story?
For two years in Istanbul, she enjoyed a comfortable life. Nour found work in a hair transplant salon, and later with Turkish state TV. She learnt Turkish, went horse-riding and dyed her hair blonde for the summer.
So worked for the Turkish version of the Bbc. Perhaps why the Bbc was so sympathetic to her plight..
But she wanted to start a new life away from the region. She aimed to make it to the Swedish city of Gothenburg where her brother lives with his young family. There, she would apply for political asylum.
So basically abandoned the job & life she'd established in Turkey because she fancied living with her brother.. Now I'm not fully versed in the law, but that doesn't sound like a valid claim for asylum to me.
I agree, but there needs to be a properly established balance about what is "concern for the good of the UK" and what is "racism"
<snipped>
Hardly fair, and rightly a topic for discussion yet as soon as someone says "Let's talk about...." there are a hundred fingers pointed and raised voices saying "RACIST!!!" so until we have a sensible conversation, like proper adults, then I'm afraid this will never go away and the anti-immigration sentiment of the public will continue to fester unchecked
I agree with everything you are saying Darth. I am no racist, I am not bothered what religion they are, I am not bothered what colour they are, they could be little green men from Mars for all I care.
What I am bothered with is the fact we know nothing about these people that are coming into our country, they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists for all we know. They come from countries where rape is prevalent, lawbreaking is prevalent, violence and the use of weapons is prevalent, but here we have no need for guns and machetes (yet). They think it is perfectly acceptable to break into lorries, threaten lorry drivers, damage trailers and ruin the freight they are carrying, yet our lorry drivers are the ones who are fined if they are caught carrying them in the trailer. Our people are suffering and run the risk of losing their livelihoods but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
These people will be let in whilst their applications are being processed, which can take months, who knows what mayhem they can cause it that time. What security checks are done before they are let loose in our country? None. We only have to look at the murder of Alice Gross to see that no security checks are done. Her murderer had been in prison for murder in Latvia, he was then released and came to the UK and as a result a family here lost their little girl.
We can't just sling open the doors and let them all in, we need to do it slowly and properly. If that makes us all racists then tough.
I agree with everything you are saying Darth. I am no racist, I am not bothered what religion they are, I am not bothered what colour they are, they could be little green men from Mars for all I care.
What I am bothered with is the fact we know nothing about these people that are coming into our country, they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists for all we know. They come from countries where rape is prevalent, lawbreaking is prevalent, violence and the use of weapons is prevalent, but here we have no need for guns and machetes (yet). They think it is perfectly acceptable to break into lorries, threaten lorry drivers, damage trailers and ruin the freight they are carrying, yet our lorry drivers are the ones who are fined if they are caught carrying them in the trailer. Our people are suffering and run the risk of losing their livelihoods but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
These people will be let in whilst their applications are being processed, which can take months, who knows what mayhem they can cause it that time. What security checks are done before they are let loose in our country? None. We only have to look at the murder of Alice Gross to see that no security checks are done. Her murderer had been in prison for murder in Latvia, he was then released and came to the UK and as a result a family here lost their little girl.
We can't just sling open the doors and let them all in, we need to do it slowly and properly. If that makes us all racists then tough.
Excellent post and I believe a lot of the British population would agree with you.
For two years in Istanbul, she enjoyed a comfortable life. Nour found work in a hair transplant salon, and later with Turkish state TV. She learnt Turkish, went horse-riding and dyed her hair blonde for the summer.
So worked for the Turkish version of the Bbc. Perhaps why the Bbc was so sympathetic to her plight..
But she wanted to start a new life away from the region. She aimed to make it to the Swedish city of Gothenburg where her brother lives with his young family. There, she would apply for political asylum.
So basically abandoned the job & life she'd established in Turkey because she fancied living with her brother.. Now I'm not fully versed in the law, but that doesn't sound like a valid claim for asylum to me.
This appears to be quite common. I read an article where a Syrian graphic designer explained that he had been working in Turkey. However, he was making his way to Germany to claim asylum as the pay is better.
For two years in Istanbul, she enjoyed a comfortable life. Nour found work in a hair transplant salon, and later with Turkish state TV. She learnt Turkish, went horse-riding and dyed her hair blonde for the summer.
So worked for the Turkish version of the Bbc. Perhaps why the Bbc was so sympathetic to her plight..
But she wanted to start a new life away from the region. She aimed to make it to the Swedish city of Gothenburg where her brother lives with his young family. There, she would apply for political asylum.
So basically abandoned the job & life she'd established in Turkey because she fancied living with her brother.. Now I'm not fully versed in the law, but that doesn't sound like a valid claim for asylum to me.
Thats just so wrong. We need to send this to the Swedes so they boot her back out.
You are just repeating history, and putting a Carte Blanche over it to make you your opinions acceptable, are they really all men, have you not seen the pictures of the dead children who drowned in the med.
What is the difference between genuine refugees and an economic migrants and can you really distinguish between the two, they are both desperate for a better life.
The real problem is that there are a lot of displaced people in the world at the moment, it's a very difficult situation to deal with, men are entitled to seek a better life as well or do you think they should just be cannon fodder like WW1
I do understand the concerns about what is happining and their is no easy answer but generalising and putting people in boxes will not make the problem go away.
History has taught us that when people put themselves in this situation (ie leave their culture and homeland they are really desperate) and also they can be a very valuable member of society where they settle.
Which is the point. I did not say they were ALL men I said young men made up the bulk of the refugee columns. That does not mean there are no women and children howver the demographics of the current 'refugees' is at odds with refugees throughout history and it is because of past refugee crises that we have the refugee agreements in the modern world, so history does have an extremely important part to play.
If I move to London from Scotland in search of a better life I am an economic migrant the difference is that I am a British citizen moving within Britain. I have the citizenship legitimacy to do that. I also do not break into company offices or force my way into industrial estates and say I want to be here and I will be here irrespective of what the law, you remember that thing we tend to live by, says.
Distinguishing between the two is fairly easy a refugee reaches safety and seeks safe refuge, an economic migrant endeavours to reach the country of his choice. People who are desperate can be valuable members of society they can also be a drain on society and can be violent criminals. The point is we do not know so better to have a situation where people apply and we make a decision on whether we like them or not. This is way it works and we tend to work within a legal framework.
I am not placing people in boxes they are doing that themselves by their violent activities in Calais.
Britain has taken in less than 200 refugees from Syria. Shameful.
Maybe if there wasn't so many third world economic migrants jumping on the bandwagon, we might have been able to find safe temporary homes for the Syrian children.
I would happily take a Syrian child over any of the scumbags breaking into lorries in Calais.
I agree with everything you are saying Darth. I am no racist, I am not bothered what religion they are, I am not bothered what colour they are, they could be little green men from Mars for all I care.
What I am bothered with is the fact we know nothing about these people that are coming into our country, they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists for all we know. They come from countries where rape is prevalent, lawbreaking is prevalent, violence and the use of weapons is prevalent, but here we have no need for guns and machetes (yet). They think it is perfectly acceptable to break into lorries, threaten lorry drivers, damage trailers and ruin the freight they are carrying, yet our lorry drivers are the ones who are fined if they are caught carrying them in the trailer. Our people are suffering and run the risk of losing their livelihoods but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
These people will be let in whilst their applications are being processed, which can take months, who knows what mayhem they can cause it that time. What security checks are done before they are let loose in our country? None. We only have to look at the murder of Alice Gross to see that no security checks are done. Her murderer had been in prison for murder in Latvia, he was then released and came to the UK and as a result a family here lost their little girl.
We can't just sling open the doors and let them all in, we need to do it slowly and properly. If that makes us all racists then tough.
Alice Gross: the murdering rapist came from a country that is already an EU member. Way to go for free movement of people!
Machetes: Already here, I'm afraid. I was quite shocked when I started reading reports of their use in some crimes. Forget knives; those things are something else.
I agree. You know, this isn't about creating a scene of horror nightmarish hyperbolic paranoia, and grossly and unfairly painting and tarring a whole nation of people in ridiculous ways. It is about knowing what human beings are like and what they can do, whoever they are and wherever they come from, and not being so dumb and stupid and ignorant in the way in which we manage a crisis just because we don't want to be called a horrid label.
The UK has provided almost twice as much foreign aid to Syria than the entire EU put together. Shameful.
Some of the things that we do are incredible despite everything.
The UK response to the disaster in the Philippines (the typhoon in December 2013) is one of the greatest things I have seen happen in my life.....
Amazingly....on the day it hit Tacloban I was in a Uk Border Agency Office with a young Filipino woman waiting for an agonising decision from a Home Office case worker. And then......the tv monitors above our heads suddenly displayed the breaking news.
Comments
Let's do it in one chunk. The thread is about the migrant crisis in Europe in which the UNHCR afaik isn't involved or if it is it is being very quiet about it. If you wish to discuss what happens elsewhere in the world and the role of the UNHCR then start a thread on it.
For goodness sake....I am getting to Europe.
So thats a Yes then.
Now turning to other countries (in Europe) in which the government conduct RSD operations.
If a country (in Europe) is unable - for whatever reason - to conduct it's own Refugee Status Determination operations, do you accept that the provider of RSD Operations is now the UNHCR - period - because the UNHCR are the default provider?
With respect, your pedantics are adding nothing to the discussion, other than "Oh Landis is really clever" which of course, you aren't. You seem to deliberately enjoy arguing.
True about Merkel. I agree, but BIB: That's because her short-term solution isn't a practical answer to what is likely to be a long-term problem over time. And that's the problem with our current leaders in the EU and over the pond in the US: always more bothered by and concerned with the election cycle and votes.
The only reason Cameron will not dare let tens of thousands of people in, as Cooper et al suggest, is obvious: the EU referendum and the likelihood he will lose - winning the referendum will be his lasting legacy (and given what happened during the Scottish referendum, it is easy to see how he will run scared of that); his broken and impossible promise to meet his immigration pledge (even though there is a difference between "asylum" and "immigration", for Joe Public it will always be about numbers coming in and settling in some form or other. A lot of voters don't care for semantics); probably Osborne - if he wins the Tory leadership - yakking in his ear not wanting Cameron leaving him with a plateful of cr@p that he has to deal with come 2020; and Cameron only has a 12-seat majority - the Eurosceptic wing of his party just won't have it, any of it.
@Blockz99: Took the words right out of my mouth!
LOL. You really are a hoot, these people appear to land, don't seek asylum until they can travel to where it is they want to live and all you can do is witter on about the UNHCR which has nothing at all to do with the crisis. Have a nice evening.
I am just following the conversation. Most of the forum is an argument of one form or another. If jmclaugh continues to argue that UNHCR don't have an overall responsibilty for Refugees (when obviously they do) what would you expect me to do other than demonstrate that clearly they do have overall responsibility by giving examples of the UNHCR taking responsibility.
Or....he could withdraw. Oh! He just did. Funny that!
And if there is an argument.....I didn't start it. No I am not "really clever". I am not sure what you think a Political forum is for, or why you are even making a post that has nothing to do with the thread.
Checkout the thread title. This conversation is 100% bang on topic. If the crisis deepens.....and a country disputes a UNHCR ruling which says that a thousand asylum seekers do have valid claims for Refugee Status, the crisis could worsen.
Did it all look a bit staged to you? I watched it again this morning and I think the whole thing has been set up by the reporter. Are the Beeb now faking stuff to get a good story?
Agreed again and I just cannot see anything getting better in the near or far future, with the exception of the usual winter slow down. The issue of migration may just define the politics of this and/or the next generation.
I agree, but there needs to be a properly established balance about what is "concern for the good of the UK" and what is "racism"
at the moment, any public talk of immigration is deemed racist, and that is wrong - a lot of people are genuinely concerned about the state of the UK post-influx of large quantities of immigrants from foreign lands. the UK has a lot of countryside, but that natural beauty is potentially up for development if the Government decide that we need to build new homes and towns to accommodate vast amounts of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. what is best for the UK? a natural, unspoiled landscape of forests and hills, or a large conurbation just to house people who decided they've had enough of their homeland and want to come and live here?
I have nothing against immigration as a legal system, if I want to go and live in New York, there are legal channels to do so. I can't however, decide to wake up tomorrow and board a plane to New York and immediately claim asylum as soon as I land at JFK. For one, my claim would probably be rejected outright on the grounds that I left a safe country, unless my claim is against the UK. Then the US would decide whether I should have moved to Ireland or another EU country rather than the US.
Either way, I'm not going to have an easy time trying to convince the US to let me stay there and live in New York, especially not if I expected them to provide shelter for me as well!
So why should any other country, the UK included, be any different in their immigration policies? Are the US inherently racist for having strict processes in place to prevent a mass influx of people who "want a better life, so decided to go to the place they would like to live in and ask for it"? I say the US are quite sensible, so why should the UK or Europe be any different?
Germany murdered millions of Jews during the 1940s, so there is obviously some form of national guilt driving them to want to take in refugees as some sort of atonement for the Holocaust. Likewise, I suspect a lot of European countries are harbouring some form of guilt for not putting up enough of a fight when Germany invaded them (the French still harbour a grudge that the UK stood against Germany whilst Paris bent the knee) so I suspect a lot of European sentiment towards these refugees is stemming back, in many ways, to the childhoods of the leaders of those countries who saw their families in post-war Europe, and don't want the same kind of "guilt" on their own consciences.
However.... what we are discussing here is not legal migration - it is illegal and therefore we should, like Hungary and the Eastern Europeans, follow the law, if we do not apply the law equally then why do we even have a law?
Immigration is a major political issue, and one that I agree may define this generation of politics, but I think we need to be sensible about why people are upset by it - a country's national culture is threatened once a large influx of people move in, bringing with them their own customs, foods and religions. Pretty much every town in the UK has at least one "sklep" on the street now, just like there are a lot of Asian supermarkets on high streets, so large scale immigration DOES bring a change, and it is understandable that many people are afraid of what that change may be, especially if the people coming are not coming to jobs or to work, how will they financially support themselves? I know it's a major topic of discussion in my area that people are not happy that migrants are given money (UK taxpayers money) to help them whilst they cannot work, yet UK taxes increase when the Government runs out.... so we're giving "free" money to the new people, yet expecting the citizens to pay more to fund the system.
Hardly fair, and rightly a topic for discussion yet as soon as someone says "Let's talk about...." there are a hundred fingers pointed and raised voices saying "RACIST!!!" so until we have a sensible conversation, like proper adults, then I'm afraid this will never go away and the anti-immigration sentiment of the public will continue to fester unchecked
Agreed too. Both 'sides' of the argument are equally right I feel also. Humanitarian (even economic, who are the west to tell others they cannot have our trappings) vs Tribal (bring in the animals, everyone behind the stockade, shut the gate, it is after all a fundamental and successful survival technique which is ingrained into human DNA (so to speak)). Which "ratio / venn diagram" solution or combination of solutions which basically encompass the basic two routes, makes for equally interesting and worrying times.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219621/Refugee-crisis-not-just-tedious-inconvenience-holidaymakers-says-Andy-Burnham-calls-Britain-care-genuine-asylum-seekers.html#comments
whose next? and is the schengen treaty falling apart?
If they are, it may have backfired..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34118978
For two years in Istanbul, she enjoyed a comfortable life. Nour found work in a hair transplant salon, and later with Turkish state TV. She learnt Turkish, went horse-riding and dyed her hair blonde for the summer.
So worked for the Turkish version of the Bbc. Perhaps why the Bbc was so sympathetic to her plight..
But she wanted to start a new life away from the region. She aimed to make it to the Swedish city of Gothenburg where her brother lives with his young family. There, she would apply for political asylum.
So basically abandoned the job & life she'd established in Turkey because she fancied living with her brother.. Now I'm not fully versed in the law, but that doesn't sound like a valid claim for asylum to me.
I agree with everything you are saying Darth. I am no racist, I am not bothered what religion they are, I am not bothered what colour they are, they could be little green men from Mars for all I care.
What I am bothered with is the fact we know nothing about these people that are coming into our country, they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists for all we know. They come from countries where rape is prevalent, lawbreaking is prevalent, violence and the use of weapons is prevalent, but here we have no need for guns and machetes (yet). They think it is perfectly acceptable to break into lorries, threaten lorry drivers, damage trailers and ruin the freight they are carrying, yet our lorry drivers are the ones who are fined if they are caught carrying them in the trailer. Our people are suffering and run the risk of losing their livelihoods but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
These people will be let in whilst their applications are being processed, which can take months, who knows what mayhem they can cause it that time. What security checks are done before they are let loose in our country? None. We only have to look at the murder of Alice Gross to see that no security checks are done. Her murderer had been in prison for murder in Latvia, he was then released and came to the UK and as a result a family here lost their little girl.
We can't just sling open the doors and let them all in, we need to do it slowly and properly. If that makes us all racists then tough.
Excellent post and I believe a lot of the British population would agree with you.
Thats just so wrong. We need to send this to the Swedes so they boot her back out.
Thank you. I think I'm going to run for the Prime Minister's job as the one we currently have is crap.
Which is the point. I did not say they were ALL men I said young men made up the bulk of the refugee columns. That does not mean there are no women and children howver the demographics of the current 'refugees' is at odds with refugees throughout history and it is because of past refugee crises that we have the refugee agreements in the modern world, so history does have an extremely important part to play.
If I move to London from Scotland in search of a better life I am an economic migrant the difference is that I am a British citizen moving within Britain. I have the citizenship legitimacy to do that. I also do not break into company offices or force my way into industrial estates and say I want to be here and I will be here irrespective of what the law, you remember that thing we tend to live by, says.
Distinguishing between the two is fairly easy a refugee reaches safety and seeks safe refuge, an economic migrant endeavours to reach the country of his choice. People who are desperate can be valuable members of society they can also be a drain on society and can be violent criminals. The point is we do not know so better to have a situation where people apply and we make a decision on whether we like them or not. This is way it works and we tend to work within a legal framework.
I am not placing people in boxes they are doing that themselves by their violent activities in Calais.
Maybe if there wasn't so many third world economic migrants jumping on the bandwagon, we might have been able to find safe temporary homes for the Syrian children.
I would happily take a Syrian child over any of the scumbags breaking into lorries in Calais.
I agree
Alice Gross: the murdering rapist came from a country that is already an EU member. Way to go for free movement of people!
Machetes: Already here, I'm afraid. I was quite shocked when I started reading reports of their use in some crimes. Forget knives; those things are something else.
I agree. You know, this isn't about creating a scene of horror nightmarish hyperbolic paranoia, and grossly and unfairly painting and tarring a whole nation of people in ridiculous ways. It is about knowing what human beings are like and what they can do, whoever they are and wherever they come from, and not being so dumb and stupid and ignorant in the way in which we manage a crisis just because we don't want to be called a horrid label.
Some of the things that we do are incredible despite everything.
The UK response to the disaster in the Philippines (the typhoon in December 2013) is one of the greatest things I have seen happen in my life.....
Amazingly....on the day it hit Tacloban I was in a Uk Border Agency Office with a young Filipino woman waiting for an agonising decision from a Home Office case worker. And then......the tv monitors above our heads suddenly displayed the breaking news.