The EU Migrant Crisis

Freakbro · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:06

kitch9 said:
A known terrorist ....

Hold on, the article (that I assume you didn't bother to read) says "has been claimed to be an alleged member of a militant Islamist group" and where did the allegations come from "facebook"

Well, that's that then, no need to investigate any further some random allegations and facebook says so

You couldn't make this up.

I don't know why, you certainly seem to be doing so

Skunkworks · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:06

estebanrey said:
Do we know who the 32 million people who visit the UK every year are? Last time I checked there was no extensive background check for tourists.

So by your logic we should close our borders immediately to all tourism. I mean they say they coming to see Buckingham Palace, but are they, ARE THEY?

They have passports and are identifiable.

Tephnos · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:18

estebanrey said:
Do we know who the 32 million people who visit the UK every year are? Last time I checked there was no extensive background check for tourists.

So by your logic we should close our borders immediately to all tourism. I mean they say they coming to see Buckingham Palace, but are they, ARE THEY?

Are you stupid? Serious question.

Tourists have passports and background checks are easily done, they can be identified. These people in question cannot.

Lord-Jaffa · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:19

Skunkworks said:
They have passports and are identifiable.

LOL don't be stupid. They are not identifiable.

Terminal_Boy · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:23

Skunkworks said:
I think the point being made we have no idea who the **** these thousands of people are.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

estebanrey · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:32

Skunkworks said:
They have passports and are identifiable.

So were the 17 people who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. They even took their passports with them.

Having a "passport" means northing in terms of knowing someone's history before letting them into your country.

The point is, it is an utterly ridiculous argument to say we shouldn't let a few thousand refugees in because "we don't know who they are" (what you actually mean of course is 'they're probably murderers, rapists and terrorists') when we allow millions of people to come here every year despite not much more about them than they own a passport, which in turn is clearly no barrier to someone becoming a terrorist or a rapist.

Tephnos · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:37

estebanrey said:
So were the 17 people who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. They even took their passports with them.

Having a "passport" means northing in terms of knowing someone's history before letting them into your country.

The point is, it is an utterly ridiculous argument to say we shouldn't let a few thousand refugees in because "we don't know who they are" (what you actually mean of course is 'they're probably murderers, rapists and terrorists') when we allow millions of people to come here every year despite not much more about them than they own a passport, which in turn is clearly no barrier to someone becoming a terrorist or a rapist.

?

Yes, sometimes identifiable people can suddenly turn terrorist. People are people. However, to use that as a justification for letting thousands of passport-less, completely unidentifiable people in, because 'it could always happen?' What a strawman.

You've gone bonkers.

Cosimo · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:43

Breaking news on relocation:

European interior ministers have agreed a deal to relocate 120,000 migrants across the continent in a vote passed by a significant majority.

Under the plan, migrants will be moved from Italy, Greece and Hungary to other countries in the EU.

Four Central European countries voted against mandatory quotas.

But a large majority of EU member states backed the plan, which will take effect over the next two years.

Not clear whether those voting against will have to take some.

Steedie · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:45

Great...idiots

twist3d0n3 · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:46

Cosimo · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:48

twist3d0n3 · 22 Sep 2015 at 16:49

Cosimo said:
To save having to watch for thirty minutes can we have a brief summary?

just started watching it myself

Freakbro · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:03

Cosimo said:
To save having to watch for thirty minutes can we have a brief summary?

Rubbish.

The initial premise of his rant is an argument against the acceptance of the refugees based on the rationale that it is a justifiable punishment for Europe due to it's policy in the ME....errr.....what...people may cite our western foreign policy as an influencing factor on the current crises, but not that this is our 'punishment' that we 'deserve'

checking out his wiki

In 2012, libertarian philosopher David Gordon gave a critical examination of Molyneux's 2007 Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics in The Mises Review, stating, "He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad."

Having just heard the basis of this vlog, I can empathise with that conclusion

estebanrey · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:11

Tephnos said:
?

Yes, sometimes identifiable people can suddenly turn terrorist. People are people. However, to use that as a justification for letting thousands of passport-less, completely unidentifiable people in, because 'it could always happen?' What a strawman.

You've gone bonkers.

Eh? The only strawman is the one you just made.

The justification for letting them in is they are desperate people fleeing war and poverty, we have to do something as clearly they aren't all going to just turn around and go home again and we have some legal and moral obligations to accept a number of refugees.

I was pointing out the flaw in the "we don't know who they are" logic which is a (stupid) justification for NOT letting them in.

Roar87 · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:21

estebanrey said:
Eh? The only strawman is the one you just made.

The justification for letting them in is they are desperate people fleeing war and poverty, we have to do something as clearly they aren't all going to just turn around and go home again and we have some legal and moral obligations to accept a number of refugees.

I was pointing out the flaw in the "we don't know who they are" logic which is a (stupid) justification for NOT letting them in.

Is fleeing poverty an acceptable reason though? I mean we can see they're not starving, though obviously they're not as rich as we are in the West. Where do we draw the line? Is it our duty to provide homes and a certain standard of living for the entire World?

Terminal_Boy · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:33

estebanrey said:
Eh? The only strawman is the one you just made.

The justification for letting them in is they are desperate people fleeing war and poverty, we have to do something as clearly they aren't all going to just turn around and go home again and we have some legal and moral obligations to accept a number of refugees.

I was pointing out the flaw in the "we don't know who they are" logic which is a (stupid) justification for NOT letting them in.

The huge crowds of young, fit, brand name sport wear clad and iPhone equipped men look really desperate. Some of them might not have EU roaming set up on their iPhones and be down to their last clean pair of Air Jordans.

Tephnos · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:40

estebanrey said:
Eh? The only strawman is the one you just made.

The justification for letting them in is they are desperate people fleeing war and poverty, we have to do something as clearly they aren't all going to just turn around and go home again and we have some legal and moral obligations to accept a number of refugees.

I was pointing out the flaw in the "we don't know who they are" logic which is a (stupid) justification for NOT letting them in.

Are you spouting the same crap Amigafan did at the start of the thread?

We can clearly see the genuine refugees are vastly outnumbered by the economic gimmiegrants. We don't owe those (economic migrants) people anything.

Chris Wilson · 22 Sep 2015 at 17:45

To accept poverty is a rationale to give homes to people means we all get dragged down to a lower common denominator. I don't believe the vast majority of westerners will find that acceptable. If you accept that moving to more prosperous regions is a legitimate reason to for this illegal migration en masse, then where does it stop? From how the Eurocrats appear to have caved in to this illegal invasion does not bode well for how they would tackle a humdinger of a war, it looks like they'd fly the white flag from Brussels at the first gun shot. A dire and weak decision, bound to give those thinking of migrating for purely economic reasons without any legal formalities the impetus to join the throngs. This could, and probably will, run and run until Europe is unrecognisable, economically and culturally.

If this decision isn't a red rag to the extreme right wing I don't know what is...

SexyGreyFox · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:23

This is what we want in Britain -

Even though all of it is complete b*******

estebanrey · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:34

Terminal_Boy said:
The huge crowds of young, fit, brand name sport wear clad and iPhone equipped men look really desperate. Some of them might not have EU roaming set up on their iPhones and be down to their last clean pair of Air Jordans.

Which one of those items protects them from being bombed and therefore excludes them from Refugee status?

Tephnos said:
Are you spouting the same crap Amigafan did at the start of the thread?

We can clearly see the genuine refugees are vastly outnumbered by the economic gimmiegrants. We don't owe those (economic migrants) people anything.

We can 'see' that can we, I'd prefer some actual proof rather than your biased gut feeling from footage we've seen on Sky News.