Excellent point, and one I've just been alluding to. Why aren't the USA, Canada and Russia for that matter, opening their doors to the vast wide open spaces in their respective countries?
Sorry, I don't get why it ALWAYS has to be Western Europe. The silence from other parts is deafening.
if they don't want to go to Hungary, they won't fancy Russia.
Excellent point, and one I've just been alluding to. Why aren't the USA, Canada and Russia for that matter, opening their doors to the vast wide open spaces in their respective countries?
Sorry, I don't get why it ALWAYS has to be Western Europe. The silence from other parts is deafening.
For Canada they've been taking lessons from IDS, Australia hates foreigners and has a small problem with domestic violence, Russia has Putin.
Lets face it Western Europe or New Zealand are the only areas civilised enough
Excellent point, and one I've just been alluding to. Why aren't the USA, Canada and Russia for that matter, opening their doors to the vast wide open spaces in their respective countries?
They've probably got those wide open spaces earmarked for housing and feeding their own expanding populations. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees that they already accept every year.
Sorry, I don't get why it ALWAYS has to be Western Europe. The silence from other parts is deafening.
Because other countries don't allow themselves to be treated like doormats. Nor do they have vast hordes of sheltered, naive do-gooders actively campaigning to take on the burden of all the world's problems.
anyway they take in 10s of millions of poor mexicans :kitty:
You are joking!
The only Mexicans they're interested in taking in are wealthy drug barons. The yanks love folk like them because they do damn good business in supplying the cartels with weapons and ammo.
The only Mexicans they're interested in taking in are wealthy drug barons. The yanks love folk like them because they do damn good business in supplying the cartels with weapons and ammo.
"The Great British Bigots". I think I'm going to have that printed on merchandise and sell it. I am going to make a fortune because it identifies with so many people over there that they will proudly gobble them up. I'm going to be rich, rich I tell you.
They've probably got those wide open spaces earmarked for housing and feeding their own expanding populations. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees that they already accept every year.
Because other countries don't allow themselves to be treated like doormats. Nor do they have vast hordes of sheltered, naive do-gooders actively campaigning to take on the burden of all the world's problems.
I think this new style 'refugee' we're seeing at the moment are simply not happy going to ANY safe country. They are asylum shoppers and quite frankly, deserve to be sent back. I'm talking about the hoards of seemingly single men who refuse to move, chant, fight and vandalise both in Hungary and Calais, not to mention attack civilians. Do we really want to take in thugs like this? What these young men are doing is undermining the real refugees who are putting up with living in UN camps. Many people are saying if they show this amount of passion, fight and aggression here, why not fight for their own country. No, it's easier to upsticks, leave their families to rot while they seek the good life.
If you were fleeing for your life, you would be happy in the first safe country. And Turkey, Hungary, France etc are all safe. I do think half the fault this week though it Merkel announcing she'd take nearly a million. It's now like a stampede. But no women and children first in this chaos, the young men are scrrambling over them to get first dibs on a new German life. But saying that, women and children don't seem to he held that high in a lot of middle eastern countries so it's no surprise.
I agree with Cameron and Andy Burnham when they say we should only take refugees who are at UN camps, genuine ones, not the ones we are already seeing in Europe.
Another good point. But I'm assuming many of these refugees are Shiite Islam, so these Sunni countries won't have them.
The largest religious group in Syria are the Sunni Muslims which make up around 64% of the population. So why aren't they taking more in? Aren't the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs bombing ISIS as well? No point trying to advance an anti-US agenda when they actually do take refugees in.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/12/us-syrian-refugees-accept-thousands-resettlement.html#
The United States takes in about 70,000 refugees a year, of whom Iraqis accounted for the largest number in the last fiscal year — nearly 20,000. They were followed by more than 16,000 Burmese, more than 9,000 Bhutanese, more than 7,000 Somalis and more than 4,000 Cubans. The number of Bhutanese is dwindling, however, opening up room for more Syrians.
It doesn't look like they're doing much when you read further. Reading this bit:
In an interview with Al-Monitor Dec. 22, Richard said, “People are surprised we haven’t taken more.” She said the initial low numbers reflect the reality that “resettling refugees is never the first thing you do when people are fleeing an emerging crisis” and that other countries — in particular Germany and Sweden — have “stepped forward and offered to take a lot” of Syrian refugees.
it would seem as soon as other countries say they'll take more, America rubs it's hands with glee.
And:
UNHCR seeks to identify the most vulnerable candidates, Richard said. “By Dec. 15, we had 10,000 referrals from UNHCR and they are coming in at 1,000 to 1,500 a month.”
Asked how many of those referred would be accepted, Richard said, “I think most” because they are likely to meet the United State's definition of a refugee as someone fleeing persecution or threats because of race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs or membership to a particular social group.
Refugees must also pass medical and security checks.
And since 9/11 it's taken on a particularly nasty 'we do what we like' flavour.
Exceptionalism as "exemptionalism"
During the George W. Bush administration, the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context. Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being "above" or an "exception" to the law, specifically the Law of Nations. (This phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.)
And thus why many of their leading politicians don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for the crisis their policies have created and haven't made any offer to alleviate it.
It comes to something when Putin starts giving lectures, and in this case, is correct...
Putin, speaking to the Russian news agency TASS, said he warned the West about the possible consequences of its Mideast and Africa policy several years ago.
"What is this policy about? This is imposing its standards without taking into consideration historic, religious, national and cultural specifics of these regions," Putin told the Russian news agency TASS at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. "This is first of all, the policy of our American partners."
"I am looking with surprise at certain American mass media now criticizing Europe for an excessively tough, as they believe, treatment of migrants," Putin added.
Europe is "blindly following U.S. instructions" and suffering greatly, he said.
Ignore the blatant hypocrisy of Putin's attitude towards the Baltic States, this is specifically about what America has done to create this crisis, and they are not taking responsibility for it!
Harper's Canada... another country that likes to stick its oar into countries that have nothing to do with them (Ukraine, cough cough) but clearly seems to think it has no international responsibilities.
Canada has strict entry criteria for family migration visas.
They are tough,but fair.
Clearly the person who was refused entry did not meet the criteria that every other family immigration entrant was assessed by.
That does not make Harper a monster,them's the rules !
And since 9/11 it's taken on a particularly nasty 'we do what we like' flavour.
And thus why many of their leading politicians don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for the crisis their policies have created and haven't made any offer to alleviate it.
It comes to something when Putin starts giving lectures, and in this case, is correct...
Ignore the blatant hypocrisy of Putin's attitude towards the Baltic States, this is specifically about what America has done to create this crisis, and they are not taking responsibility for it!
Look, you've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about the United States, but I don't hear them talking about being exceptional all the time.
You're taking the rhetoric of politicians, historians and thinkers, much of which emerged in the dawning of a brand new nation, and applying it to a whole nation and hundreds of millions of people in the modern day.
It's a pretty pathetic generalisation to being hanging onto.
And if you're going to start quoting Vladimir Putin of all people as an authority on America's shortcomings, especially if you're going to say 'ignore Putin's hypocrisy' in the process, then I know for certain that you've got a prejudiced point of view.
Comments
if they don't want to go to Hungary, they won't fancy Russia.
Lets face it Western Europe or New Zealand are the only areas civilised enough
not really. there is a lot of people putting pressure on us. I bet there aren't many US politicians saying "we oughta help these poor a-rabs"
Senate Dems call on Obama to resettle 65,000 Syrian refugees
Beggars can't be choosers.........or can they? ^_^
They've probably got those wide open spaces earmarked for housing and feeding their own expanding populations. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees that they already accept every year.
Because other countries don't allow themselves to be treated like doormats. Nor do they have vast hordes of sheltered, naive do-gooders actively campaigning to take on the burden of all the world's problems.
As they keep telling us, they're 'exceptional'.
Do they keep telling us that?
you've probably said that about 3 times tonight
anyway they take in 10s of millions of poor mexicans :kitty:
The only Mexicans they're interested in taking in are wealthy drug barons. The yanks love folk like them because they do damn good business in supplying the cartels with weapons and ammo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/americas/26iht-border.4.20459692.html?_r=0
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/17396-u-s-government-and-top-mexican-drug-cartel-exposed-as-partners
i'm not joking they have between 10 to 20 million illegal mexicans living in the US :kitty:
Wasn't it something to do with Turkey refusing to issue passports?
Of course wealthy Americans need Mexicans to do all their shitty jobs.....people like Meg Whitman former CEO of eBay who exploit them.
There is no need for Canada to do so as according to AP, no application was ever made.
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/09/03/the-latest-greece-rescues-751-at-sea-in-latest-24-hours
"Vast hordes"? Sounds a bit of an exaggeration!
If you were fleeing for your life, you would be happy in the first safe country. And Turkey, Hungary, France etc are all safe. I do think half the fault this week though it Merkel announcing she'd take nearly a million. It's now like a stampede. But no women and children first in this chaos, the young men are scrrambling over them to get first dibs on a new German life. But saying that, women and children don't seem to he held that high in a lot of middle eastern countries so it's no surprise.
I agree with Cameron and Andy Burnham when they say we should only take refugees who are at UN camps, genuine ones, not the ones we are already seeing in Europe.
The largest religious group in Syria are the Sunni Muslims which make up around 64% of the population. So why aren't they taking more in? Aren't the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs bombing ISIS as well? No point trying to advance an anti-US agenda when they actually do take refugees in.
It doesn't look like they're doing much when you read further. Reading this bit:
In an interview with Al-Monitor Dec. 22, Richard said, “People are surprised we haven’t taken more.” She said the initial low numbers reflect the reality that “resettling refugees is never the first thing you do when people are fleeing an emerging crisis” and that other countries — in particular Germany and Sweden — have “stepped forward and offered to take a lot” of Syrian refugees.
it would seem as soon as other countries say they'll take more, America rubs it's hands with glee.
And:
UNHCR seeks to identify the most vulnerable candidates, Richard said. “By Dec. 15, we had 10,000 referrals from UNHCR and they are coming in at 1,000 to 1,500 a month.”
Asked how many of those referred would be accepted, Richard said, “I think most” because they are likely to meet the United State's definition of a refugee as someone fleeing persecution or threats because of race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs or membership to a particular social group.
Refugees must also pass medical and security checks.
Yes they do. Perhaps you haven't heard many Obama speeches, but he regularly reminds us of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
And since 9/11 it's taken on a particularly nasty 'we do what we like' flavour.
And thus why many of their leading politicians don't feel any responsibility whatsoever for the crisis their policies have created and haven't made any offer to alleviate it.
It comes to something when Putin starts giving lectures, and in this case, is correct...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/04/middleeast/turkey-russia-blame-west-migrant-crisis/
Ignore the blatant hypocrisy of Putin's attitude towards the Baltic States, this is specifically about what America has done to create this crisis, and they are not taking responsibility for it!
Canada has strict entry criteria for family migration visas.
They are tough,but fair.
Clearly the person who was refused entry did not meet the criteria that every other family immigration entrant was assessed by.
That does not make Harper a monster,them's the rules !
Look, you've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about the United States, but I don't hear them talking about being exceptional all the time.
You're taking the rhetoric of politicians, historians and thinkers, much of which emerged in the dawning of a brand new nation, and applying it to a whole nation and hundreds of millions of people in the modern day.
It's a pretty pathetic generalisation to being hanging onto.
And if you're going to start quoting Vladimir Putin of all people as an authority on America's shortcomings, especially if you're going to say 'ignore Putin's hypocrisy' in the process, then I know for certain that you've got a prejudiced point of view.