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?
I don't see you criticising people for citing Breitbart either, a website that leans further to the right than a man who's just had his right-leg blown off.
You'll also notice that I only posted the figures and explanations of them and not the opinion piece that followed, so unless you think they just made them up I don't see what your point is.
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?
It wasn't meant to settle "the argument" (if by which you mean the entire refugee crisis), but merely disprove the notion that the 'vast majority' of these people are mostly benefit scroungers looking for a free ride which is a cornerstone of your argument it seems...or at least it was.
Are you seriously saying that the UK/EU should agree to take in an unlimited number of refugees from such countries?
No, as I clearly explained in my last post.
Please top misrepresenting my arguments and building strawmen. I know you want me be to be this Lentil-Eating, Owen Jones type shouting "Let everyone in...think of the children" but that isn't me.
We should take some, I generally think our present policy isn't too bad if you must know, but what you don't seem to be getting is why I am arguing with you is because your stance seems to be "let no one in and do nothing", or at least that's how it comes across.
How many do
you think we should take?
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?
The UN seems to be able to define the difference between the two, and contrary to what you probably think, the EU has deported thousands of people who've been found to not fit the UN definition of a genuine "refugee".
Surely that is a far more sensible approach than your implied solution which seems to be 'don't let anyone in until they can prove they are refugee' which is frankly unworkable (but part of me thinks you know that).
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?
Legally speaking yes.
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'm saying that people who keep saying "they have to settle in the first country they get to, the law says so innit" are speaking bovine fecal matter. I'm saying if we're going to discuss this properly, let's start basing what we think on facts and not common ignorance.
Why when presented with a fact do you feel the need to read something into it and then extrapolate it to an extreme scenario. How is the fact that refugees are under no legal obligation to settle in the first "safe" country they reach synonymous with them being able to 'pick and choose' where they live?
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.
Seriously, do you just read the first 2 or 3 paragraphs of what I write then reply, disregarding the rest? I addressed that at the end where I said they were interesting questions and ones we could debate.
However, we haven't even agreed on what numbers we're talking about yet and whether you are willing to take any at all so how can we talk about what impact it would have?
Since you seem so keen to quote statistics...
Rather than just relying instinct and blind prejudice like you?
, 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.
Oh dear, where do I start? Let's start with your claim that "just 1 in 10 Somalis in Britain actually has a job?" shall we?
Your article doesn't say that, it says 1 in 10 has a FULL TIME job and the breakdown chart shows that actually only around 12-16% percent are unemployed, more of them are at University than on JSA.......
It's amazing how you can selectively pick out the right-wing quote mined bits from what is a well-balanced article that actually explains why they struggle more than other migrants, and at no point does it say it's because they're welfare chasers which seems to be your conclusion.
In fact one of the problems it cites is the discrimination Somalis face at job interviews so you are actually partially blaming them for being black and foreign. How dare they!
But the most amazing thing about you posting that article is it contains stuff that completely contradicts your stance on the migrants....
Exhibit #A
In a country where other refugees have flourished, why do Somalis do so badly?
So you've been told that with the exception of Somalis, refugees tend to flourish here.
How can you then, with any kind of integrity, use that piece as evidence that the current migrants (less than 5% are from Somalia) are likely to be unemployed layabouts when it specifically says the opposite is the case?
Exhibit #B
Many Somali households are headed by women who came to Britain without their husbands.
But according to you they should be mostly men shouldn't they? I thought that was how you proved refugees were economic migrants just coming here to live off welfare?
It also explains why there is a higher unemployment rate given single mothers can't work unless they can afford the UK's exorbitant child care costs.
