Unstoppable migration?

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

How on earth would you know what Thatcher did to me personally you utter [Mod Edit - insult removed] ?

Well given your age, you would have been 10? when the Miners strike happened, and 15 ish when the Poll Tax stuff happened, I'd suggest your fetishism with Thatcher is more down to 'Inherited learnings' than personal experience.

[Osem]

No it's nothing like that - it's just a typical standard Labourite defence offered by those who have no answers and refuse to accept any blame.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Well given your age, you would have been 10? when the Miners strike happened, and 15 ish when the Poll Tax stuff happened, I'd suggest your fetishism with Thatcher is more down to 'Inherited learnings' than personal experience.

You would be suggesting wrongly.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

No it's nothing like that - it's just a typical standard Labourite defence offered by those who have no answers and refuse to accept any blame.

Care to expand on that one?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Let's see, travel 2000 miles (for example) to a country which has stated it doesn't want refugees or travel 3000 miles to somewhere that will welcome you. Doesn't make you any less desperate or in need in my book.

In that case we have a different defintion of 'desperate' or 'in need'. If you refuse safety (or several offers of safety) because it doesn't suit you then you're makiing a choice.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Russ

In that case we have a different defintion of 'desperate' or 'in need'. If you refuse safety (or several offers of safety) because it doesn't suit you then you're makiing a choice.

So by your logic all refugees should only move to the nearest geographically located safe country e.g Syria to Turkey for example?

Seems fair

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Russ

In that case we have a different defintion of 'desperate' or 'in need'. If you refuse safety (or several offers of safety) because it doesn't suit you then you're makiing a choice.

Russ, can you elaborate more on this offer of safety that seems to be have refused? You are right, if these people all have been made aware of region local refugee camps that are available, have reasonable sanitation, facilities, etc, are correctly funded, operated by UNHR or equivalent NGO then they should not be arriving on the doorstep of the EU.

Is this truly the case?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So by your logic all refugees should only move to the nearest geographically located safe country e.g Syria to Turkey for example?

To the nearest safe EU member state, yes. If that country cannot accept them then that government should have the responsibility of transferring them to another safe EU country, the location of which should be between the relevant governments and NOT just the choice of the refugee.

If you are desperate then you’ll accept the first safe country that will take you. If you refuse it then you’re making a choice.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Russ, can you elaborate more on this offer of safety that seems to be have refused?

France is a good example.

[Osem]

Add, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Austria, Italy, Greece,.... widely varying degrees of comfort and welcome yes but 'safe', I'd say so when compared to what these people claim they're fleeing from.

I reckon that if countless thousands of migrants suddenly decided that the home towns and villages of those who support open doors were their preference they'd soon have a change of heart and be demanding action to stem the tide. So much for generosity...

As it is, these migrants will not be or stay dispersed for long and we'll have no means by which to stop them going where they like. Watch the sentiment change when that happens - pity it'll be too late then...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Osem

Add, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Austria, Italy, Greece,.... widely varying degrees of comfort and welcome yes but 'safe', I'd say so when compared to what these people claim they're fleeing from.

They're true but France is the obvious example when refugees are at Calais trying to get to us.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Osem

Add, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Austria, Italy, Greece,.... widely varying degrees of comfort and welcome yes but 'safe', I'd say so when compared to what these people claim they're fleeing from.

I reckon that if countless thousands of migrants suddenly decided that the home towns and villages of those who support open doors were their preference they'd soon have a change of heart and be demanding

As it is, these migrants will not be or stay dispersed for long and we'll have no means by which to stop them going where they like. Watch the sentiment change when that happens - pity it'll be too late then...

Yet again, it's another sweeping generalisation with no actual factual basis at all!!

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

To the nearest safe EU member state, yes. If that country cannot accept them then that government should have the responsibility of transferring them to another safe EU country, the location of which should be between the relevant governments and NOT just the choice of the refugee.

If you are desperate then you’ll accept the first safe country that will take you. If you refuse it then you’re making a choice.




France is a good example.

So, just to clarify... we are to let other member states of the EU struggle on their own until they can't manage before the next bordering country steps in to assist.?

Again, seems fair, the very definition and spirit of the word Union.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Russ

They're true but France is the obvious example when refugees are at Calais trying to get to us.

Yes that's probably the best example of all. There is no need for anyone to be holed up in squalor in Calais unless they're intending to take advantage of our 'system'. I reckon the main reasons for this would be housing/benefits (as clarified in earlier posts) or to work illegally, disappear into our large black economy and cynically use a belated asylum claim only when they've been detected and are facing removal. They know the longer they stay, they less likely it is they'll ever be removed no matter what their true background, reasons and behaviour. Our shambolic 'system' is a big pull factor and the thousands at Calais prove it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, just to clarify... we are to let other member states of the EU struggle on their own until they can't manage before the next bordering country steps in to assist.?

Putting words in my mouth again; I've already addressed that the last time you suggested it.

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, just to clarify... we are to let other member states of the EU struggle on their own until they can't manage before the next bordering country steps in to assist.?

Again, seems fair, the very definition and spirit of the word Union.

Hate to burst your bubble but...
We didn't join a Union, we joined something called the Common Market (the clue is in the name)

We never voted for anything beyond that, we had a referendum about 5 minutes after joining and no clue was what happening back in the 70's

Your bloody Union has spread like a Cancer far beyond what it was envisaged back in the day.

Happily however, after a LOT of campaigning, we WILL now get a chance to vote on whether to stay in or out of said... Union

Don't bother trying to guess what I'll be voting for

[Osem]

Spirit of the word Union

Germany's showing their definition of the word - creating a problem then telling the rest of the EU how they're going to have to deal with it just like they did with Greece.

Anyway I'm sure all those who've forced their way through numerous countries are going to queue up nicely in Germany and happily wait for their buses to Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia in full expectation of a warm welcome and a better life...

Let's see what 'union' looks like then eh?

What needs to happen for the hard of mental ability is to stop the problem nearer to the source and not let hundreds of thousands of people feel they can overwhelm borders and choose where they go. When we've got to that point the real damage is done and the only choice is to then erect national borders to try to stem the flow and discourage other from following. That's exactly what's happened as a result of the EU's dithering and Merkel's welcome.

[nomadking]

Link.

Once someone has been identified and approved, they have full legal rights to settle in the UK for five years - and for the first months, they will be accompanied every step of the way into their new life.
When they arrive in the UK, they are met at the airport by a welcome team who take them to their new home. And the next morning, their personalised integration plan begins.
Just like anyone else, they can work and claim benefits. Everything about life in the UK is explained to them in briefings and classes.
School places are ready for their children, there is a GP already set up to take them on and, where necessary, specialists to work on their long-term health problems.
There are trips to the job centre and colleges for those ready to go back to work or study.

When do the rest of us get all that?

Under the VPR scheme, the refugees will be granted five years' humanitarian protection, which includes access to public funds and the labour market, as well as the possibility of family reunion, if a person was split up from their partner or child when leaving their country.
After that period they can apply to settle in the UK.
Eventually the UK will have to take about 400 refugees a month in order to meet its 20,000 target by 2020.

So actually many times the 20,000 to arrive here.