Welcome to refugees

It cannot have escaped anybody's attention last weekend that many supporters in Germany posted big banners that said "Welcome to refugees." Wonder if any PL or football league clubs will do this on the first match after the international break. If anyone does it, it is likely to be Liverpool and Manchester United fans. I have challenged my fans of my own club to think about this.

 

Why?

 

Why?

 

Think I'll stay off this one in case I'm seen as cold blooded. I'll just say that refugee is a very general word as it's being used at the moment.

 

BVB invited 200 or so to their last game. Brilliant pictures.

 

if the world wasnt such a ****e place full of ****s there wouldn't be things like this happening, sadly the people with the power to do something about it dont give a **** sadly.

funny people from europe coming here in their thousands are not called refugees, but from outside europe they are classed as it.

whats the dif between these people coming to live here and the ruddy polish that have invaded?

 

Generally a 'refugee' is an individual who has fled their country and place of residence due to immediate threats to their personal safety and way of life, or who has been forced to leave due to war / civil war / military reprisal / hostile dictatorship etc

A 'migrant' is a more open word that tends to be associated with an individual who has chosen to leave their country of residence for another, rather than being forced out by one of the above hostilities, in search of better economic prospects and standard of living

Some media outlets often use the terms interchangeably and with little sense or awareness of their true definition

 

Unfortunately now we're talking about people crossing land borders I think the 2 are virtually indistinguishable, as there's undoubtedly people seeking to take advantage of the situation.

Most genuine refugees don't want to leave their homes and the answer is to keep them safe until they can return to their homeland with peace of mind. The west need to make a decision as to what they're going to do with IS, and act with vigour imo.

 

German chancellor Angela Merkel worried right-wing violence towards refugees could split Germany

please log in to view this image

Nigel Farage has said immigration must be a key issue in the EU referendum campaign, claiming Europe's asylum policy has "opened the door to an exodus of biblical proportions".
The UKIP leader said those wanting to downplay the subject in the run-up to the vote, fearing it would strike too divisive a tone, were wrong.

 

Membership of the EU has no relevance to the genuine refugee issue, hardly a shocker that Farage has latched on to it though.

 

I think the UK Government has a big responsibility in creating this situation with the military invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, this destabilising the whole situation and creating a power vacuum that has brought about I. S.

 

The concept of the EU is to do away with national borders thus allowing the free movement of people within it. But hey ho, national Governments (UK Tories for example that only a minority of people wanted in the first place) are still resistant to its concepts and ideas which leads to problems that the right wing press have manipulated the idea that EU regulations are an attack on the liberty of the British people. No, they maybe an attack on the British Government that only 25% of people voted for.

 

Good point........the British establishment has played a part at least in many of these countries unstable political situations.


Weapons deals,supporting tyrannical regimes,stealing peoples natural resources and wealth,vested interests etc.etc.

 

What % of British people voted for the EU project as it now stands?

 

What you should do is tell Mexico they have to pay for a wall to be built all around the United Kindom... out at sea... that way all your immigrant problems will be solved and it can be used to keep Harry Redknapp out too.

/ sarcasm off.

 

Have you met @BringBackFootie. mate?

I reckon you'd enjoy each others company

Bring back the Dictators that's what I say, they knew where they stood when a good old fashioned dictator had the reigns.................

 

None.

And this is the problem we've already mixed very distinct ideas into one in this discussion.

The EU was originally about opening trade markets not borders. Certain countries who it benefited eg Germany deliberately fudged this to mean employment markets which was not what the British originally signed up to specifically because our icreasingly service orientated economy didn't suit it. Other states have a deliberate federalist agenda (again Germany France etc ) so pushed for political and economic union which necessitated in opening borders, single currency etc. Successive British government's allowed this to happen without reference to the British people other than resisting currency integration.

Which is arguably why voter turn out in eu elections has fallen since they began. Around 35% now in comparison to a low of 60% in UK elections over same period (not 25%). What the govts have agreed to isn't what the people have wanted or at the very least would like a say in.

Even if we accept open European borders as part of a treaty agreement signed up to by British govts rather than by referendum it does not mean an open border policy to the middle east or North Africa.

As for non Eu illegal migrants (illegal because hey are not coming into the country by passport control via authorised documentation ) it's a very large umbrella as others have already noted.

Political Refugees: people in direct danger from internal or external forces of their country of origin. There is obviously a moral issue for any self claiming liberal democracy to accept people it agrees with from persecution by others. However there is a grey area. Bin Ladin was technically a refugee under threat of torture from his country of origin but we'd hardly have considered him a refugee. As were lots of runaway Nazi. We saw them as world criminals, countries such as Argentina and Brazil saw them as refugees. So threat of violence is not quite as clear cut as it first seems. It really must be down to how much the refugee is aligned with the country they wish to enter. One of the Eastern European countries has said no to Muslim refugees on the grounds of difficulties assimilating them into a predominantly noon Muslim country. We wouldn't dare suggest that but yet struggle with assimilation of second generation immigrants here already. To suggest logic is to be threatened with being lumped in with the far right.

Economic migrants. Moving from poor to affluent countries. Is this our responsibility? Should we take in unwanted migrants or give constructive foreign aid to improve their circumstances where they come from with them still there? Should it be an economic argument. What type of people do we need economically?

As for a moral responsibility to areas we've muddled in. You could argue that as a post colonial empire to half the known world we are responsible for most strife in some way in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It isn't practical as an answer to adopt the peoples from there as a consequence of our past misdeeds. We simply aren't big enough and if you can't take them all what selection criteria do you then use?

That doesn't mean we do nothing. But that's a complex issue in itself as it requires more of the type of meddling that got us in trouble in the first place.

 

Last post should be known as a Frankbomb!

 

Yeah Luv. If they had thrown my posts out the plane instead of cruise missiles they would have covered more km2,

 

I see he's met facts already no need

Meanwhile Blair and anyone else thick enough to beleive him says it's all because of religion