The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
How can any of you ****s watch the news every evening, see what is happening in Syria and then say that it's not our problem, immigrants not welcome?

Another question that probably won't be answered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
Stan said:
How can any of you ****s watch the news every evening, see what is happening in Syria and then say that it's not our problem, immigrants not welcome?

Another question that probably won't be answered.
Click to expand...


Who says it's not our problem? Above that, it's humanities problem.

The issue tends to be the best way of helping those most in need as a consequence.

The most in need tend to be the poor, women and children, as they don't have the resources to travel across the world.

That means that the young military age males that can afford the smugglers fees and are clogging up the borders, are actually taking resources away from the vulnerable, and limiting the availability of people capable of actually defending the disadvantaged.

Surely it's better to assist people to avoid the risks associated with travelling long distances and being abused along the route by smugglers and other crooks, and to provide care and resources as close to their homeland as possible.

They cease to be in danger a long time before they reach EU, never mind our borders, they should then cease to qualify for asylum and are then subject to the same migrant rules as everyone else on the planet, except they're circumventing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton
DMD said:
Who says it's not our problem? Above that, it's humanities problem.

The issue tends to be the best way of helping those most in need as a consequence.

The most in need tend to be the poor, women and children, as they don't have the resources to travel across the world.

That means that the young military age males that can afford the smugglers fees and are clogging up the borders, are actually taking resources away from the vulnerable, and limiting the availability of people capable of actually defending the disadvantaged.

Surely it's better to assist people to avoid the risks associated with travelling long distances and being abused along the route by smugglers and other crooks, and to provide care and resources as close to their homeland as possible.

They cease to be in danger a long time before they reach EU, never mind our borders, they should then cease to qualify for asylum and are then subject to the same migrant rules as everyone else on the planet, except they're circumventing that.
Click to expand...
At what point should they stop then?
 
DMD said:
Who says it's not our problem? Above that, it's humanities problem.

The issue tends to be the best way of helping those most in need as a consequence.

The most in need tend to be the poor, women and children, as they don't have the resources to travel across the world.

That means that the young military age males that can afford the smugglers fees and are clogging up the borders, are actually taking resources away from the vulnerable, and limiting the availability of people capable of actually defending the disadvantaged.

Surely it's better to assist people to avoid the risks associated with travelling long distances and being abused along the route by smugglers and other crooks, and to provide care and resources as close to their homeland as possible.

They cease to be in danger a long time before they reach EU, never mind our borders, they should then cease to qualify for asylum and are then subject to the same migrant rules as everyone else on the planet, except they're circumventing that.
Click to expand...
I knew you'd be the first of the ****s to reply.
 
paultheplug said:
At what point should they stop then?
Click to expand...

Depends which direction they head. Saudi, Qatar etc seem to have a similar culture and slack in the system, but above that, what happened to women and children first?

If I was in fear for my families safety, I wouldn't leave with all the rest that were capable of defending them.

Short answer to your question, which I believe is too narrow, but to save you banging on, they should stop when they're safe. That point tends to coincide with places where the west has sent a lot of finance and resources to create places where they can stay in safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Prime Minister and petersaxton
DMD said:
Depends which direction they head. Saudi, Qatar etc seem to have a similar culture and slack in the system, but above that, what happened to women and children first?

If I was in fear for my families safety, I wouldn't leave with all the rest that were capable of defending them.

Short answer to your question, which I believe is too narrow, but to save you banging on, they should stop when they're safe. That point tends to coincide with places where the west has sent a lot of finance and resources to create places where they can stay in safety.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, how much time have you spent in the Middle East?

I'd ask the same question of Pete, but he's scared of Stan, and Kustard but he's admitted that he doesn't leave Kiddy.
 
DMD said:
Depends which direction they head. Saudi, Qatar etc seem to have a similar culture and slack in the system, but above that, what happened to women and children first?

If I was in fear for my families safety, I wouldn't leave with all the rest that were capable of defending them.

Short answer to your question, which I believe is too narrow, but to save you banging on, they should stop when they're safe. That point tends to coincide with places where the west has sent a lot of finance and resources to create places where they can stay in safety.
Click to expand...
All the refugees will end up in a very few countries then. That will be OK just as long as none of them get to the UK.
 
paultheplug said:
All the refugees will end up in a very few countries then. That will be OK just as long as none of them get to the UK.
Click to expand...

Do you mean refugees, or migrants, or asylum seekers?

Would you leave your wife, children and other vulnerable people in a place of danger?
 
DMD said:
Do you mean refugees, or migrants, or asylum seekers?

Would you leave your wife, children and other vulnerable people in a place of danger?
Click to expand...
What are you implying about these men who risk their lives to get to a safe country that may allow them to arrange safe passage for their families?

If you don't want to answer the question then that's fine but don't bother going off on one of your time filling bore fests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back