The EU Migrant Crisis

[itchy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

Been part of the plan all along, the ****ing *******s!

 

[Tefal]

So why do you think they are risking their and their families lives, leaving their homelands and taking a dangerous journey half way across the world...leaving the lives that were affluent enough to afford iphones, selfie sticks and various branded clothing...not for fear, no....but for £72.50 / week JSA?

And you know the free house/flat.

That's a bit more than 72 quid a week isn't it...

 

[Tefal]

The scheme must now be ratified by EU leaders in Brussels on Wednesday.
If one country says no, the deal will not happen. I am sure I was reading every country will have a veto power so the decision must be unanimous.

No this is being pushed through on the rarely used majority vote system

 

[wildman]

You are just an ignorant troll*, no point wasting time on you.

*most probably leftist as well

no amount of personal insults who chose to hurl at Estebanrey change the truth about his comments stating that none of what you posted were actual facts. He might be a left leaning moon maiden type, but he is right. What you posted is Daily Mail right wing knee jerk reaction fodder and not actual fact represented by any kind on empirical data that would stand up to scrutiny.

try harder mate before getting personal with someone as it merely reinforces that you have lost an argument if you need to resort to hurling insults...................

 

[estebanrey]

Well if he has to produce 'proof' to back up his claims, you should too, and you haven't. Unless you're saying that our default position should be to accept the 'refugee' narrative unquestioningly, which is nonsense.

I did, I provided numbers that showed the vast majority do qualify as refugees or did you selectively ignore what I posted? Just in case, I'll post it again the "proof" (or at worst a lot better than just saying 'they look like wrong'uns to me' which is what you are seemingly defending) again here.....

Far from being propelled by economic migrants, this crisis is mostly about refugees. The assumption by the likes of Hammond, May and others [i.e you and Tephnos] 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%.

There, now where your or Tephnos' figures to back up the assertion that "the vast majority are benefit scroungers".

Don't give a flying ****. Why are all these problems about us? We didn't cause those wars so we are under no obligation to suffer the consequences in terms of the massive economic burden of accepting those refugees and the massive social upheaval that would also result.

The seaside towns of Britain didn't cause World War II but they still sheltered the children of built up areas likely to be bombed. Are you saying during that time those kids should have just stayed in London and sucked it up? Do you think the small towns and villages that took them in during the Blitz were somehow hard done by?

And before you spout off about the Geneva convention again, please don't bother. The UK Parliament is sovereign in this country and will be until the Geneva convention gets an army.

I will mention it every time someone misunderstands what it says. You seem offended it doesn't actually say what you thought it did and instead of being grateful for learning something new, you're just shifting the burden to the UK being 'sovereign' as if parliament has some major desire to not commit to the Geneva Convention's protocols.

Oh well that's okay then, is it? How can you write such nonsense with a straight face? People are supposed to be okay with the fact that they're almost all men because 'they're going to bring their families over later'?

I'm explaining why there are "mostly men" in Western Europe, whether you're happy about it or not is irrelevant to the fact that the stat isn't the 'smoking gun' you thought it was.

Your assertion was that because they are mostly men, it somehow proves they must all be economic migrants. It doesn't, that's all.

And what you're saying doesn't even make sense: if the situation where they came from was so bad why would the head of the family -- the father -- leave them to fend for themselves while they traipsed off to Europe?

They're not leaving them in the war zone, they are fleeing to the camps at the border where they have immediate safety and then the men escape those camps and make the longer journey knowing their family has short-term safety.

Thank goodness we currently have a government with a bit of common sense and not some bleeding heart 'citizen of the world' types like you

So because I accept the fact that large numbers of these people are genuinely fleeing war, I'm not tarring them all with the same brush and not advocating a zero-tolerance to any kind of re-settlement makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" does it?

I personally think what Germany is doing is stupid and has probably exacerbated the problem, but I also recognise there is a real issue here and something needs to be done by all countries.

Most British people (me included) would like to help genuine refugees, but there are two important provisos: (i) they have to be genuine refugees (which many of the current influx absolutely are not) and (ii) we have to have the capability of properly integrating these people once they get here.

Jesus, you really didn't read what I posted did you? Please stop with this "they're mostly coming here fro the money" myth, it's getting embarrassing when you refuse to show any evidence of this and ignore statistics to the contrary.

You're a like a kid who's put his fingers in his ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you" after being told Father Christmas isn't real.

Do we have the social housing available to house 100,000 new migrants (oh and lets not forget their families who will be on their way soon after)? Do we have the spare capacity in the NHS? Do we have the spare school places? Can we afford to give them language training so that they will hopefully be able to find a job down the line? Can we afford to pay them benefits until such a time as they are employable? Currently the answer to most of those questions is no.

All interesting questions/issues and ones we could debate on (btw I've never said the UK should take 100k refugees) but so far you're arguments have come across as we should do nothing, take no one and nor should any other European Country.

Apologies in advance if this isn't how you feel, but your posts have the air of "we should just build a wall around Syria and let them die...not our problem is it?" about them.

 

[b0redj0rd]

POLITICIANS INVITING MIGRANTS INTO EUROPE WANT ‘DISINTEGRATION’ SAYS FORMER CZECH PRESIDENT VACLAV KLAUS

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...ion-says-former-czech-president-vaclav-klaus/

The former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has accused politicians welcoming migrants to Europe of doing a disservice to the continent. He warned that the purpose of the welcoming policy is the disintegration of Europe as it is known, and the creation of a new society.

Vaclav Klaus was writing in German newspaper, Die Welt, taking aim at “irresponsible” European politicians such as Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Joachim Gauck.....

.....Klaus explains what he believes to be the real motivation behind the migration policy by referring to the thoughts of the former Head of his Presidential Office, Jiri Weigl.

He repeats Weigl’s theory that it is “precisely the purpose” of the open-arms policy to destroy cohesion in order to then build a “new Europe” on the ruins of the old “without those who are satisfied with the existing Europe.” As migrants are not bound to any of the present European states, they can more easily be re-educated, manipulated and indoctrinated to identify with a “new multiculturalist Europe.”

Klaus concludes:

“Maybe [Merkel and Gauck] believe her invitation is a positive humanitarian gesture. They are wrong. On the contrary, it is a disservice to Europe. I have deep concerns about the future of European civilisation.”

 

[estebanrey]

no amount of personal insults who chose to hurl at Estebanrey change the truth about his comments stating that none of what you posted were actual facts. He might be a left leaning moon maiden type, but he is right. What you posted is Daily Mail right wing knee jerk reaction fodder and not actual fact represented by any kind on empirical data that would stand up to scrutiny.

try harder mate before getting personal with someone as it merely reinforces that you have lost an argument if you need to resort to hurling insults...................

Thanks. But to clarify I'm no left wing loon and get just as wound up by, for example, the Green EU MP I've just seen on Newsnight who basically denied there would be any problems from this mass migration and how everyone else in the EU should be following Germany's lead.

I hate extreme views on either side, but more than that I hate BS arguments and people promoting myths and scaremongering conjecture.

Too many people are happy to just lap up anything which supports their initial bias and don't care whether it's true or not. I like to think I'm not like that will denounce fabrications that support my stance just as vehemently as ones that don't.

 

[Boycey0211]

Hmm so I had 5 days away from the forums working in the Czech Republic, guess what, they arent overrrun by migrants........

In fact in my 5 days in the city I think I saw one group of about 6-7, and they were having a day out at the airshow.

without going back 20 pages has the argument changed? I see the usual lefty rubbish being bandied about on this page..

 

[itchy]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...nt-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenario

So that's how you start a world war, silly me thinking its nasty Russians with big red buttons.

Mark my words and I will put my life on it, this will end in hell for everyone.

But you lefties and liberals are like giant tampons, you just suck it all up and dump it on the end of a yarn.

 

[estebanrey]

Hmm so I had 5 days away from the forums working in the Czech Republic, guess what, they arent overrrun by migrants........

In fact in my 5 days in the city I think I saw one group of about 6-7, and they were having a day out at the airshow.

without going back 20 pages has the argument changed? I see the usual lefty rubbish being bandied about on this page..

Eh? Your initial two sentences seem to go against the right-wing scaremongering yet you talk about the "usual lefty rubbish" being spouted in your last one. It seems contradictory.

Read the last 3 pages, it makes the Daily Mail look like a Socialist Workers magazine.

I'm intrigued to know what this "lefty rubbish" is.

 

[Boycey0211]

Eh? Your initial two sentences seem to go against the right-wing scaremongering yet you talk about the "usual lefty rubbish" being spouted in your last one. It seems contradictory.

Read the last 3 pages, it makes the Daily Mail look like a Socialist Workers magazine.

I'm intrigued to know what this "lefty rubbish" is.

I was speaking about people bandying about the lefty remark as some kind of comeback, rather than a valid point

 

[estebanrey]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...nt-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenario

Migrant crisis and Euro tensions threaten to trigger catastrophic conflict claim experts

I didn't realise there were "experts" in the conditions needed to start a World War, that must be quite a niche PHD they've done.

Pro-tip, when a paper attributes its claim to unnamed "experts" it normally means "this is our opinion but we need an appeal to authority to give it some credence".

Reading the article it seems when they say "experts" they actually mean the opinion of one Hungarian Journalist

 

[estebanrey]

I was speaking about people bandying about the lefty remark as some kind of comeback, rather than a valid point

Ahhh OK, I see now.

 

[itchy]

Hungarian Journalist

I would trust more than any left wing UK Journo.

I don't care anymore as I know it will end in ****, I will be long gone by then so took in don't be shy.

 

[Zethor]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...nt-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenario

So that's how you start a world war, silly me thinking its nasty Russians with big red buttons.

Mark my words and I will put my life on it, this will end in hell for everyone.

But you lefties and liberals are like giant tampons, you just suck it all up and dump it on the end of a yarn.

How could anyone take your doomsday prediction seriously when every sentence of your (failed) attempt to create an argument ends with a smiley?

 

[estebanrey]

I don't care anymore as I know it will end in ****, I will be long gone by then so took in don't be shy.

Long gone? Where?

 

[kissenger]

I did, I provided numbers that showed the vast majority do qualify as refugees or did you selectively ignore what I posted? Just in case, I'll post it again the "proof" (or at worst a lot better than just saying 'they look like wrong'uns to me' which is what you are seemingly defending) again here.....

I love you keep quoting that passage from a Guardian article but never mention it's a Guardian article -- i.e., the most left-wing newspaper there is. You don't seem me quoting stats from the Daily Mail, do you?

But to address your question directly: you didn't prove anything. You may well be right in saying that a majority of the migrants are from war-torn countries (although your figures are from early in the summer and that majority might be in question now), but how does that settle the argument? Are you seriously saying that the UK/EU should agree to take in an unlimited number of refugees from such countries?

And do you not at all see how unclear the boundary actually is between refugees and economic migrants? E.g., large parts of Iraq are ****ed, but Kurdistan is relatively safe, so does that make an Iraqi from Kurdistan looking to settle in Germany a refugee or an economic migrant? I made a similar point in my previous post. I.e., is someone fleeing a war-torn country still a refugee after they've passed through their first safe country? But you just responded by saying that the Geneva convention (which I never referred to in the first place! You brought that up) doesn't require refugees to settle in the first safe country they get to. So what are you saying, they should be able to pick and choose where they end up?!

I also find it astounding that you could write such a long post and not even address the issue of the practicalities of taking in all these 'refugees', despite the fact that that is clearly the main issue here. Since you seem so keen to quote statistics, did you know that just 1 in 10 Somalis in Britain actually has a job? See:

http://www.economist.com/news/brita...her-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long

It might just be me, but that seems like a pretty worrying statistic and something worth thinking about before we admit even more Somali immigrants and immigrants from other war-torn countries in that region and elsewhere. It's all very well having a bleeding heart and being the one telling everyone else they lack compassion, but that's not a sound basis for making policy in the long run.

 

[itchy]

Long gone? Where?

Either

Canada, Australia, Dubai or Canaries. Get out the rat race so to say, as that is all that will be left of Europe the way things are going.

Dubai is my last choice for obvious reasons but its still an option.

I just don't get how thousands upon thousands of people from different cultures and religions can coalesce and integrate with current cultures in such a short time frame?

How is this possible? Its beyond comprehension how such a massive influx of different people could work.

Sits scratching head.

Someone please explain because am at a loss here? Never in human history has this worked, so why now all of a sudden it will work?

Ignore everything I have said if you dislike my approach and answer me this?

When in human history has mass migration of people, worked in favour of the indigenous population of any country in the world????

 

[Sankari]

Syrians? Genuine refugees.

Iraqis? Genuine refugees.

Pakistanis? Genuine refugees.

Nigerians? Genuine refugees.

And so on, and so forth. Examples could be multiplied.

I think the point is that if someone was leaving because they're in fear of their life/safety they would settle in the first safe country. Not travel half way around the world on a fairly dangerous journey.

They can't always settle in the first safe country, because not every safe country will agree to provide asylum—and those who do, have quotas. They can't take everyone, so most need to move on.

 

[Rroff]

Someone please explain because am at a loss here? Never in human history has this worked, so why now all of a sudden it will work?

Ignore everything I have said if you dislike my approach and answer me this?

When in human history has mass migration of people, worked in favour of the indigenous population of any country in the world????

Seems to be a human thing to ignore history and repeat the mistakes of the past.

I wish in general people would look beyond the refugee/not refugee, race, religion, etc. aspects of this and realise there are huge, complex problems behind this that taking a few refugees/migrants won't solve and infact not only won't solve but likely to spread outwards if unmanaged.

We've already seen it proved that this isn't just a traditional refugee problem (regardless of whether they are mostly refugees or not) as some tried to blindly treat it as and still most want to bury their heads in the sand.

How could anyone take your doomsday prediction seriously when every sentence of your (failed) attempt to create an argument ends with a smiley?

Its the express... the same people who claim the end of the world every time the weather changes.