The EU Migrant Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ricochet J

Ricochet J

Ricochet J

Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
12,957
I drove back home from the Netherlands last night, via the Channel Tunnel. At Calais it was quite heart breaking driving past scores of migrants in search of a better life.

It got me thinking: in the event of a British civil war, if bombs were flying past daily and the risk of death is high then I'd take my loved ones out of this country in heart beat and I'd immigrate somewhere else. Wouldn't you?

But the migrants are out of sight, and out of mind right?
 
They are indeed within their right of leaving X Y Z country to find somewhere safe to reside. My biggest problem with the "migrant crisis" more specifically in Calais, is well what’s wrong with France ? why do the French government not take them in ? last time I checked France is in the EU, France have no bombs going off and are not at war, all these migrants are in France... so why do they get no help and seem intent on coming to the UK.

Personally I just do not see why this is a UK problem. As a fleeing migrant seeking asylum you are meant to do that at the first "safe country" - at least that is my understanding (I will happily be corrected if this is wrong). But with that said, why do they travel the entire length of the EU to come to the UK to then seek asylum ? I don't get it.

But also I do agree that the whole of the EU needs to equally share this burden, but then again some countries have a much much larger land mass than others and this should be taken into account.
 
I am going to generalise here. They will mostly be coming to the UK for handouts with no intention of working. The usual migrant communities that are already here are usually cesspools of crime.
 
Adsta said:
They are indeed within their right of leaving X Y Z country to find somewhere safe to reside. My biggest problem with the "migrant crisis" more specifically in Calais, is well what’s wrong with France ? why do the French government not take them in ? last time I checked France is in the EU, France have no bombs going off and are not at war, all these migrants are in France... so why do they get no help and seem intent on coming to the UK.

Personally I just do not see why this is a UK problem. As a fleeing migrant seeking asylum you are meant to do that at the first "safe country" - at least that is my understanding (I will happily be corrected if this is wrong). But with that said, why do they travel the entire length of the EU to come to the UK to then seek asylum ? I don't get it.

But also I do agree that the whole of the EU needs to equally share this burden, but then again some countries have a much much larger land mass than others and this should be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Princey said:
I am going to generalise here. They will mostly be coming to the UK for handouts with no intention of working.
Click to expand...

You'll be branded racist and prejudice for that view.

You're not wrong but all the same.
 
Princey said:
I am going to generalise here. They will mostly be coming to the UK for handouts with no intention of working. The usual migrant communities that are already here are usually cesspools of crime.
Click to expand...

The evidence suggests you're wrong.
 
in my mind one of the big problems is the use of the word migrant - we are getting it drilled into us by politicians and the media that these people are migrating out of choice, looking for the good life on the scrounge in the uk.

We are somewhat ignoring the fact that a lot of these are people are honestly fleeing for their lives as refugees of war.


RE staying in france - the UN Refugee Agency has france putting up over twice the number of refugees than the uk -252k vs 117k (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45bb01.html)
 
Princey said:
I am going to generalise here. They will mostly be coming to the UK for handouts with no intention of working. The usual migrant communities that are already here are usually cesspools of crime.
Click to expand...

"by the end of July, 62% of those who had reached Europe by boat this year were from Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan, according to figures compiled by the UN. These are countries torn apart by war, dictatorial oppression, and religious extremism – and, in Syria’s case, all three. Their citizens almost always have the legal right to refuge in Europe. And if you add to the mix those coming from Darfur, Iraq, Somalia, and some parts of Nigeria – then the total proportion of migrants likely to qualify for asylum rises to well over 70%.

billysielu said:
Yeah I don't understand why they can't stay in France either. Granted, it's full of french people, but otherwise a pretty decent country :D
Click to expand...

France takes more than we do
 
gettothechopper said:
"by the end of July, 62% of those who had reached Europe by boat this year were from Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan, according to figures compiled by the UN. These are countries torn apart by war, dictatorial oppression, and religious extremism – and, in Syria’s case, all three. Their citizens almost always have the legal right to refuge in Europe. And if you add to the mix those coming from Darfur, Iraq, Somalia, and some parts of Nigeria – then the total proportion of migrants likely to qualify for asylum rises to well over 70%.



France takes more than we do
Click to expand...

So why not just go to the first safe country or one of the 10s of other safe counties? They're trying for the UK for the handouts that they've heard about, probably from family and friends already here.
 
Last edited:
In case of a civil war I would flee to the nearest safe country, France, Netherlands Ireland etc maybe the usa depending on where the conflict was and where I was, not however across upto a dozen other safe places to a safe country like Hungary or even a continent or two say japan or something.
 
Last edited:
Princey said:
I'm happy to be proven wrong. Show me.
Click to expand...

I think you'd first have to show the evidence to back up your statement.
Until then, it's nothing more than your own opinion, which you admit is generalised, and pretty worthless to the debate.

If someone challenges you on it, you can't just say "prove me wrong" because they can't. But I then suspect that you wouldn't be above claiming that that would somehow legitimises your original statement as undeniable truth.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Conscript said:
I think you'd first have to show the evidence to back up your statement.
Until then, it's nothing more than your own opinion, which you admit is generalised, and therefore pretty worthless to the debate.

If someone challenges you on it, you can't just say "prove me wrong" to somehow legitimise it.
Click to expand...

I think some key words in my post clearly show it's my opinion. It's based on general observations (being close to many ethnic communities) along with family members in the police force.
 
What a big shame... What's a few lives to the millions that will starve because we failed to rein in our insaitible thirst for material wealth?

The oceans are dying... But let's save a few hundred people to justify it.
 
KillBoY_UK said:
In case of a civil war I would flee to the nearest safe country, France, Netherlands Ireland etc maybe the usa depending on where the conflict was and where I was, not however across upto a dozen other safe places to a safe country like Hungary or even a continent or two say japan or something.
Click to expand...

No point in staying next door as it's not much better than home so head for where the streets are paved with gold...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom