The EU Migrant Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well this is becoming a real **** show, isn't it?

Seems to me as though Merkel made the mother of all political mistakes by declaring Germany 'open for business' to migrants. Now the numbers coming will keep increasing and EU states with their generous welfare states will be taking on a financial burden they can ill afford (especially right now in the aftermath of the financial crisis). Then of course there's the issue of integrating so many Muslims in what has historically been a collection of mainly Christian nation-states.

IMO, what the EU needs to do is get a firm grip on its own borders, start shipping refugees back to camps in and around Syria, and divert some of the funds it was going to use to settle refugees in the EU to help those camps. The current solution won't work because 120,000 is a fraction of the total number expected to come to Europe this year, and that is just a fraction of the total number of refugees who will come in subsequent years if they know they will be resettled in Europe if they only make the journey.
 
estebanrey said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is a guy on a message board supposed to produce his own proof of something like that?

Sounds to me like he's making a reasonable assumption based on what little evidence is available. E.g., the fact that most of them are not from Syria, that most of them are men between the ages of 18-35. And besides that they ceased to be refugees the moment they left the first 'safe' country they entered.
 
A lot of articles keep quoting the 800,000 migrant figure for Germany, but it's not like the doors are going to close on New Years Day. What's it going to be next year, 2 million+?

In this connected world I imagine the giant bullseye painted over Europe is well known to everyone in these failed states. It's become a lifestyle choice to come to Europe rather than as a place of refuge. It will just keep ramping up if nothing is done to sort the borders and seas and send a clear message.
 
Hi, just joined. I am aware that this thread has been covered, so sorry. However I feel I may have a little more to add without having to scroll through the many posts on other threads.

Firstly, all those do gooders who have volunteered to put up these immigrants. Why are you prepared to put up a bunch of North African Muslims when you are not prepared to house the many people we already have living on the streets. Oh, and let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people waiting to be allocated affordable housing who have lived here since birth.

Secondly. Syria desperately needs its young men and women to stay and fight for it's liberty and freedom. What it doesn't need is thousands of cowards running away from the country. Imagine what we would have called our young men and women if they had run away to Switzeralnd during the 2nd world war?

So if the rest of the world eventually sorts out ISIS in Syria, what Syrians are going to be left to sort out the country and help rebuild it, when they are all living in Europe. So what happens if ISIS march on Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and even India, is Europe expected to look after 2 billion refugees.

Of course we should help, and that is to put ground forces into Syria, and any other country that may effect the price of the worlds oil, however, the Syria crisis is the problem of Syria, and not a European issue.

Has anyone noticed whilst watching the news that 95% of these so called refugees (cowards) are male and aged between 20 and 45. They have left their families behind and run away. Of course, when they eventually settle down, they will send for their families, meaning that the initial swarm of say one million, may well turn in to 4 million within a few years. Like all mass immigration, follows the ghettos these people bring with them. Let's not forget these people are nearly all Muslims, and where ever Muslims go, trouble goes with them.

I am not short of sympathy, and believe that the very old and very young should be temporarily housed in safe countries, whilst the remainder stay behind and fight. What I am 100% certain of, is giving these people refuge, is not a good long term answer for either Europe or Syria alike.
 
So these(what ever they are)people are getting housed straight away and will have money for the first year.

There are British people waiting to be housed but now they have no chance. Thanks piggy dave.
 
JohnnyG said:
Don't take the bait...
Click to expand...

Trollface.png
 
debatealot said:
So if the rest of the world eventually sorts out ISIS in Syria, what Syrians are going to be left to sort out the country and help rebuild it, when they are all living in Europe. So what happens if ISIS march on Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and even India, is Europe expected to look after 2 billion refugees.
Click to expand...

Suffice to say the 120,000 migrants that the EU members are squabbling over is going to be nothing compared to the next few months.

ISIS has a five year plan which includes India. But I think they are looking towards Europe first. It's amazing that nothing has happened yet, there is surely a mandate to keep low key until they have sufficient numbers.
 
If there's not one rape, sexual assault, murder, or terrorist act attributed to these migrants/refugees (delete as appropriate) in the next couple of years I shall be the first to say I was wrong.
IF however, there is, then I hope the people who say there won't be any problems will do the same.
 
kissenger said:
How is a guy on a message board supposed to produce his own proof of something like that?
Click to expand...

If you are explicitly stating, as fact, that "the genuine refugees are vastly outnumbered by the economic gimmiegrants" you better have something substantial.

If he doesn't have the proof, he shouldn't be making such ridiculous claims.

kissenger said:
Sounds to me like he's making a reasonable assumption based on what little evidence is available. E.g., the fact that most of them are not from Syria
Click to expand...

Most of them are from Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan. All countries being torn apart by war.

kissenger said:
that most of them are men between the ages of 18-35.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, most of the ones who've reached Western Europe are "young men", not most refugees in total. Why? Well if you're going to seek life in a far away country you can't easily get to don't you think it makes perfect sense for the men to go, claim asylum then bring their families over later safely?

The picture of the dead toddler on the beach didn't just change the debate here, it also taught refugees to leave their young and vulnerable in a safe place and let the young, fit member of the family make the rest of the trip.


Anyhoo, here are some actual numbers that prove the claim "most are economic migrants" wrong....

62%

Far from being propelled by economic migrants, this crisis is mostly about refugees. The assumption by the likes of Hammond, May and others is that the majority of those trying to reach Europe are fleeing poverty, which is not considered by the international community as a good enough reason to move to another country. Whereas in fact, 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%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


kissenger said:
And besides that they ceased to be refugees the moment they left the first 'safe' country they entered.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, please read up on what the Geneva Convention actually says before spouting rubbish.....

There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state.
Click to expand...

Ergo, the 'first principle' relates to a country's responsibility to take refugees and not the common myth that it relates to the refugee's responsibility to have to claim there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom