The EU debate - Part III

I'm not 'implying' I'm stating quite clearly that once they're safe, they're no longer refugees or asylum seekers. I'm also saying that I wouldn't leave my family and other vulnerable people in danger, while I emigrated, particularly if my emigration took resources away from, and further endangered them.

 

So if they got a flight straight into the UK you'd be cool with that?

And you're judging them based on how you think you'd react in their situation which is something you have no real understanding or comprehension of. I know Hull is a **** hole but it's not war torn Syria.

You're full of judgemental nonsense which is backed up by **** all experience.

 

If they got a flight direct to the UK, and passed the immigration screening, yep, I'd have no problem with that, other than them leaving their family in danger. Me, I'd send them and stay behind myself if money was an issue.

You're judging me on your own ignorant prejudice and bigotry, and boring me ****less in the process.

 

You clueless ****

How much time have you spent in the Middle East?

 

Elaborate.

 

The middle of East Hull is the limit of his experience of the globe

 

Have you seen how these poor people have to travel to get to safety? The men go first as they think they MIGHT survive. If they do make it they seek asylum and do their best to arrange SAFE passage for their families.

You send a woman and a couple of young kids into the illegal immigration system and you may as well wave them goodbye forever.

It's a horrific magnification of EU men coming to Britain to live ten to a room, as some ignorant ****s put it, to make some money to send back to their families. Families torn apart by desperation, necessity and sacrifice.

I'm not saying that there aren't some chancers who exploit the system but the majority are desperate people who are living through the kind of hell you and I will never fully appreciate. I think it's ****ing vulgar to sit behind a computer, even in a cesspit like Hull, and sermonise about what they should be doing. You have no ****ing clue.

 

Then by your answer they would all end up in a very few countries. Which countries do you think that they should be.

 

You really don't seem to have much of a handle on the asylum system, and seem to get confused between it migration and freedom of movement within the EU.

No wonder you normally just resort to popping up with tedious comments.
.

 

The nearest safe havens for asylum, after which point applications for migration can be processed and considered. That way it creates an opportunity for the vulnerable to be helped to places of safety too.

 

Standard response and I clearly differentiated between EU and illegal migration.

How much time have you spent in the Middle East?

Do you think you're qualified to judge how a desperate man in Syria should try and protect the future of his family?

Direct questions that you won't answer.

 

Define "the vulnerable".

 

What countries close to Syria would you consider safe havens, and are those likely to be the ones that people fleeing a war zone wold consider safe.

 

They're daft questions that I won't answer.

Presumably you're a renowned expert, with years of on the ground experience yourself.

 

Whenever it comes to the question of asylum I think of the jews escaping Nazi Germany. Not many cared about whether they should've stopped at the first safe country they came to. I doubt America would be the country it is now, if they had.

 

Why are they daft questions?

I've said a few times that my old man is from that part of the world. I spent most of my childhood there and visit regularly.

It's quite different to the UK.

 

It depends which direction they head into, but there are many safe places between the at risk areas, which are currently reducing, and Calais or Berlin.

The gulf states take a fair few in, although they don't describe them as refugees. Turkey is another country that has had a large amount of money sent to it to support safe havens.

 

Depending which way they headed and when they set off, America was probably the next safe haven after the first, which was the UK, where many did stay. Ireland would have been the second, but they wouldn't open up to them.

 

Would you feel unsafe on holiday in Turkey?

Perhaps people could seek sanctuary in the places you visit in that region.

 

Unlikely if we're talking about nearest borders, as ppl seem to argue for now.

My point is that it seems we want to change the rules because we don't like the asylum seekers... or perhaps the rule itself. Personally, I feel if you're a genuine asylum seeker, wherever you end up, doesn't matter, you should be given safe haven. I'm sure we'll probably disagree on that. But I don't see nearest border (or any spurious criteria) as a condition for them to satisfy.