Perhaps we need a definitive collective noun for migrants. How about 'a desperation'?
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
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
-
Perhaps we need a definitive collective noun for migrants. How about 'a desperation'?
A "desperation" for some certainly - for others, it's a "hoodwink". The skill is distinguishing between the two
That's always going to be the problem. And taking a fully pragmatic view for a second, even if someone is genuinely fleeing persecution, once they get to a safe country and then do not apply for reguge because they see other countries further on as a softer touch, or a safe country where the benefits are better, they surely start to lose some of our empathy at that point.
If we're getting these people arriving at southern European shores, it's clearly not fair to expect all of those countries to bear the burden. So we should set up the ability to allocate families to countries at that point, and then we can say "Welcome to Europe, you and your family are being allocated to Denmark (for example) - here's the papers to fill in, and we will then arrange safe transport." Each country states the numbers they will accept, and anyone refusing safe refuge in the country allocated to them gets sent back.
So of the 2.5 million expected to arrive this year, how many should the UK take?
It's gone beyond this kind of scheme now. The numbers are too great and the route in too porous for Europe to cope. The only way to sort this is in Syria and Iraq and all the other places these poor people are trying to get away from. 400,000 Syrians are under siege by Assad, anti Assad or IS militia in their towns and villages today. Some are starving to death. They will keep on coming until their lives are safe and tolerable.
According to a leading EU boss (I forget who), 60% of them are economic migrants and not in fear for their lives.
We should continue to take as many as we can manage direct from war zones. We should also take as many orphans as possible, although sometimes kids are sent ahead to get a place for the rest of the family (not orphans obviously).
Merkel has caused an unbelievably huge problem with her open invitation.
This is a huge crisis and things are going to get much, much worse.
Believe it or not I think taking people direct from the camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan is the right idea. Anything to keep them off the boats. But in my book anyone in Syria, Iraq, Afganistan and any Muslim in Burma can rightly claim to be in fear of their lives. Apart from the sheer numbers the problem of people brutalised by violence and a hideous religion, plus the inevitable criminals and radicals, seems impossible to deal with in civilised terms. So I suspect we will end up returning many to the camps and paying the countries housing them to keep them there.
But It's not a tax Strolls.....it's a "so called" tax according to the BBC therefore making it clear that it's not a tax.........if you see what i mean?
Like 'so called' Islamic State? Meaning that they are not a state, despite having nearly all of the trappings of a state, including territory, revenue and a military? Right, I get it.
I think we are in agreement.
I do fear the security implications of allowing so many migrants into Europe, not to mention the social/cultural/integration problems that are manifesting themselves.
The problem is, it is very difficult to choose between genuinely desperate people, economic migrants and terrorists.
It's a right pickle and innocent people are suffering terribly. I wish I had the answers.
It's pure arrogance, Col. They just can't bring themselves to admit they got it wrong.
I really don't know how many we should take, but if the abhorrent scenes in Dover yesterday are any indication of what may happen across the country if many more thousands are admitted, I'm guessing that the numbers actually wanting to come here are gonna drop.
What seems to be the problem - that I see you handily didn't mention - is being able to assist genuine refugees whilst not pandering to the economic migrants who are not fleeing any persecution, but putting their families' lives at risk for the chance of some easy cash. I don't feel that the latter deserve any assistance except a map of the route back home. Care to comment on that element of my post?
the anti-immigration and the let them all in protesters clashed. Happening on a regular basis throughout Europe Kiwi
OK, though I don't get the passive aggressive tone.
Economic migrants have been the lifeblood of the world economy throughout history. Aside from a few of the 'pilgrim fathers' and criminals to Australia, the vast majority of the millions who have left the British Isles over the centuries have been economic migrants seeking a better life than the one they had. They all went to places where other people already lived. The opposition to economic migrants is hypocritical in the extreme, and I see no reason to villify them. There are 300,000 French economic migrants living in London, do your arguments apply to them too? Let's just be honest and say 'we are scared our standard of living may suffer if you come here, and we don't like foreigners much, especially ones with your skin tone and religious beliefs. We don't really want any of the 'genuine' asylum seekers either, to be honest'' I would respect that stance much more than this mealy mouthed crap.
As I said above, the numbers involved in the current diaspora make a civilized response almost impossible.
A bunch of right wingers in Stockholm started attacking anyone who looked like an immigrant, especially kids.