Unstoppable migration?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is the equivalent of 'lefties' thinking people on the right hate the poor.

No it isn't. Across Europe we have living (and dying tragically) proof that the policy of admitting more migrants only causes more to follow and creates huge entirely predictable problems. Anyone who refutes that does so in spite of the proof. That's not the same as a glib statement along the lines of all Tories hate the poor...

Originally Posted by Osem

No it isn't. Across Europe we have living (and dying tragically) proof that the policy of admitting more migrants only causes more to follow and creates huge entirely predictable problems. Anyone who refutes that does so in spite of the proof. That's not the same as a glib statement along the lines of all Tories hate the poor...

That proof isn't there or isn't convincing. How do you know that these immigrants wouldn't come anyway and attempt to get in via other means? We did try to stop the rescue attempts at sea and people came anyway nor is there a test case we can use to show that it is policy of admitting migrants than cause them to come.

Still you might be right on that. I am not sure. What I was commenting on is that a lot of people are clearly conflicted on the issue (even people are are traditionally anti-immigration) and that doesn't mean they are deluded, hypocritical or otherwise have a simplistic motivation.

Even the right-wing press and UKIP seem rather unsure what to make of it all. It's only on here and Facebook that I see such confidence in approaching the issue. I think that suggests it isn't so clear-cut.

[ianch99]

I see endless complaints about the migrants, the EU and how this whole mess is being handled.

I see precious little positive ideas on how the problem should be tackled at it's source i.e. trying to stop the people leaving the region in the first place rather than trying to stop them getting to where they are not welcome.

Because that's not newsworthy or emotive.

There was a brief mention in the press a couple of days ago about £100 million from the UK Aid budget being used to improve the refugee camps.

Also, how do we sort out a four-way civil war in Syria, and Shia vs Sunni conflict in Iraq.

The reason we have the current problems in Iraq, Libya, and Syria is that we tried to export our version of democracy to countries that have no history or ability to support it, due to historical and religious conflicts - Bush et al thought it was easy, and look where we are now....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

That proof isn't there or isn't convincing. How do you know that these immigrants wouldn't come anyway and attempt to get in via other means? We did try to stop the rescue attempts at sea and people came anyway nor is there a test case we can use to show that it is policy of admitting migrants than cause them to come.

Do me a favour. You only have to see what happened after Merkel's ill judged comments for as much proof as you'll ever get in a situation like this. Do you really think that if Cameron suddenly announced an open door and guaranteed permanent refuge, loads more wouldn't head straight here in order to find a better life? Whether economic migrants or genuine refugees, these people are desperate and there a countless more millions who are just as desperate. I don't think you really believe they wouldn't come here if a major stumbling block in their way was suddenly removed. The very fact that Australia has to a large extent solved what was a growing problem there by doing the opposite and being much tougher only adds to the argument IMHO. It didn't stop the boats on day one, week one or month one - it took time, but slowly as the word got around that migrants would be stopped from getting to the mainland and taken to some island in the middle of nowhere the numbers fell massively.

In the case of Europe, it's unlikely we can get those already well on the way to turn back now but we do need to stop more following on behind. We need to stop encouraging them to make that journey and help them much closer to home.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Osem

Do me a favour. You only have to see what happened after Merkel's ill judged comments for as much proof as you'll ever get in a situation like this. Do you really think that if Cameron suddenly announced an open door and guaranteed permanent refuge, loads more wouldn't head straight here in order to find a better life? Whether economic migrants or genuine refugees, these people are desperate and there a countless more millions who are just as desperate. I don't think you really believe they wouldn't come here if a major stumbling block in their way was suddenly removed. The very fact that Australia has to a large extent solved what was a growing problem there by doing the opposite and being much tougher only adds to the argument IMHO. It didn't stop the boats on day one, week one or month one - it took time, but slowly as the word got around that migrants would be stopped from getting to the mainland and taken to some island in the middle of nowhere the numbers fell massively.

In the case of Europe, it's unlikely we can get those already well on the way to turn back now but we do need to stop more following on behind. We need to stop encouraging them to make that journey and help them much closer to home.

If you cannot differentiate between the two then there is something severely wrong with you.

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because that's not newsworthy or emotive.

There was a brief mention in the press a couple of days ago about £100 million from the UK Aid budget being used to improve the refugee camps.

Also, how do we sort out a four-way civil war in Syria, and Shia vs Sunni conflict in Iraq.

The reason we have the current problems in Iraq, Libya, and Syria is that we tried to export our version of democracy to countries that have no history or ability to support it, due to historical and religious conflicts - Bush et al thought it was easy, and look where we are now....

Funny how the people who are shouting down the taking in of refugees keep on choosing to ignore this rather important fact.........

Originally Posted by Osem

Do me a favour. You only have to see what happened after Merkel's ill judged comments for as much proof as you'll ever get in a situation like this. Do you really think that if Cameron suddenly announced an open door and guaranteed permanent refuge, loads more wouldn't head straight here in order to find a better life?

Most probably they would but this sudden mass of migration happened before Germany took in a large number of refugees. It's only recently that EU countries have openly spoken about taking in these migrants and that was in response to the developing crisis rather than the spark for it. I think they would still come and attempt to get in illegally in many countries as ultimately the risk of getting caught is still better than the risk of staying in a warzone or oppressive police state.

The very fact that Australia has to a large extent solved what was a growing problem there by doing the opposite and being much tougher only adds to the argument IMHO. It didn't stop the boats on day one, week one or month one - it took time, but slowly as the word got around that migrants would be stopped from getting to the mainland and taken to some island in the middle of nowhere the numbers fell massively.

We're not talking of a conventional migration problem though which is what Australia has faced. Most of their immigrants come from the UK or Eastern Asia (China, India, Pakistan etc). None of these countries are quite experiencing the exodus that we're seeing from Syria, Eritrea and Libya. The numbers we're dealing with in Europe at the moment are vastly more than Australia faced.

Australia may provide a useful example in the case of how to deal with a conventional idea of what excessive migration is, hundreds of thousands for example, but we are dealing with a full blown crisis in the millions. Syria alone accounts for around 4 million refugees. Australia faced high numbers of migrants, Europe is facing the disintegration of several states at once.

I disagree with the idea of just refusing to take them for two reasons. One is that I think that migrants will come irrespective of the legality or ease of obtaining citizenship given the collapse of their home nations and secondly it doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the large amounts of people already here.

That said I don't know what the solution is. We witnessing the collapse of nations so maybe attempting to stabilise them might help but how would we do that?

[Osem]

Who's suggesting JUST refusing to take them? I'm suggesting we should take some refugees but focus our efforts far more on treating their problems in situ.

So far as economic migrants are concerned there's no way we can prevent people from all around the globe forming expectations, even wildly unrealistic ones, about what life will be like in the UK, the US or anywhere else for that matter and wanting to better themselves. That's why they do things like climb inside airliner undercarriage and take their chances on intercontinental flights. No we can't stop such people trying it on (and in so doing risking their lives, and those of others) so the only way to prevent them becoming a serious and ever increasing problem is to make detection, enforcement and removal far more robust. That's another subject however, right now we just need to stem the flow before things get seriously nasty.

Originally Posted by Damien

That said I don't know what the solution is. We witnessing the collapse of nations so maybe attempting to stabilise them might help but how would we do that?

Invade them, occupy them for around a century and then, when they've spent 50 years trying so hard to eject us they have forgotten they hate each other, leave them with a national flag that resembles whichever fleet of the Royal Navy was most directly responsible for their maritime security.

Trust me, it works.

[Osem]

European Union ministers are to meet to try to resolve a dispute over how to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers who have recently arrived in Europe.

Some central European states have resisted calls for EU members to accept mandatory quotas.

Whatever is decided, the UN says the EU's plans will not be enough.

The migrants are part of 500,000 to have arrived by sea this year so far. Germany says it expects up to a million this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34321185

I don't normally look at the comments sections for articles but right now from what I've seen of the almost 900 comments on this one there's not much evidence of support for taking in more migrants. As the numbers grow so will the opposition and the anger.

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Here, courtesy of UKIP, is a Labour MP's view explaining that the UK should carry on taking in migrants until we reach our 'saturation point'.

Maskell, who won the seat of York Central in 2015, was recorded addressing a rally saying that the UK should accept more refugees from Syria."20,000 is not enough, 30,000 is not enough. We will keep going until we hit our saturation point because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit?"

http://www.ukip.org/york_mp_backtrac...s_don_t_matter

I'd have thought allowing anything as serious as immigration to reach a 'saturation point' before having to do something about it is asking for big trouble, especially given the problems of integration and radicalisation we're already facing. Clearly not for Ms Maskell. I wonder what she suggests we do after her 'saturation point' has been reached and her extra one week for NHS treatment becomes 2, 3, 4... Does she think people will suddenly stop coming when we put a sign up saying 'FULL'?

When she's not encouraging saturation, I don't suppose Ms Maskell is quite so relaxed about NHS resources, waiting times etc. when there's scope for blaming the Tories.

[Ignitionnet]

I have no idea if this lady has connections to York or was parachuted in from an all-female shortlist, but I'm not sure her constituents would concur with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPl_D4bbqsE

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I have no idea if this lady has connections to York or was parachuted in from an all-female shortlist, but I'm not sure her constituents would concur with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPl_D4bbqsE

Party politics means that it doesn't matter what her constituents think. Once elected they toe the party line and follow the whip.

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Meanwhile...

[Osem]

EU interior ministers have approved a controversial plan to relocate 120,000 migrants across the continent over the next two years.

It will see migrants moved from Italy, Greece and Hungary to other EU countries.

Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary voted against accepting mandatory quotas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34329825

Still no real plan then, just an acrimonious attempt to palm off those who mainly want to go to Germany on other countries who either aren't keen to have them or are refusing to. We're all still waiting to hear, from Juncker et al, who's going to stop these people going where they want? The EU a single state? Like Hell - the antagonism stirred up here is not going to be forgotten in a very long time.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34329825

Still no real plan then, just an acrimonious attempt to palm off those who mainly want to go to Germany on other countries who either aren't keen to have them or are refusing to. We're all still waiting to hear, from Juncker et al, who's going to stop these people going where they want? The EU a single state? Like Hell - the antagonism stirred up here is not going to be forgotten in a very long time.

So what is your plan?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Whether economic migrants or genuine refugees, t

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

If you cannot differentiate between the two then there is something severely wrong with you.
.

The UN differentiates between the two and sets out guidelines for other countries to do the same

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because that's not newsworthy or emotive.

There was a brief mention in the press a couple of days ago about £100 million from the UK Aid budget being used to improve the refugee camps.

Also, how do we sort out a four-way civil war in Syria, and Shia vs Sunni conflict in Iraq.

The reason we have the current problems in Iraq, Libya, and Syria is that we tried to export our version of democracy to countries that have no history or ability to support it, due to historical and religious conflicts - Bush et al thought it was easy, and look where we are now....

Funny how the people who are shouting down the taking in of refugees keep on choosing to ignore this rather important fact........

Is it worth pointing out most of those people aren't Syrian, Libyan or Iraqi, even taking the Mail's little ways into account and taking into account that some of them may have escaped other war torn countries and need help 80% is a large figure for these little things we're taking into account to swallow up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orn-Syria.html