A new influx of boat people from france.

[Branyy 10]

7 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You know that 170 people drowned just this week crossing the med?  You think that they were taking that huge risk, with their children, just to earn slightly more...

Yes, quite possibly they were. They were already away from the risk. No rational need to do it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Branyy

[Cyclone 10]

You can't honestly believe that...  

 

Quote

As of September 2018, one in five migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea from Libya has either drowned or disappeared.

Quote

Though the migrant crisis is mostly discussed in Europe, the top ten countries with the most refugees are Middle Eastern and African countries. Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan are the top three biggest migrant destinations, while Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad are the rest of the countries in the top 10 of the list. Six out of the top ten countries with the most refugees are Muslim-majority countries.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the top three nationalities of entrants of the over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals between January 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%).

 

I suppose it's just coincidence that there is ongoing war in Syrian and Afghanistan? 

 

Or are you entirely untroubled by facts?

Edited January 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[Branyy 10]

I do. And I honestly don't see any reason, why just taking a risk should be awarded.

[Halibut 12]

Just now, Branyy said:

I do. And I honestly don't see any reason, why just taking a risk should be awarded.

I think you're both wilfully ignorant and frankly, morally bankrupt.

[Branyy 10]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Though the migrant crisis is mostly discussed in Europe, the top ten countries with the most refugees are Middle Eastern and African countries. Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan are the top three biggest migrant destinations, while Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad are the rest of the countries in the top 10 of the list. Six out of the top ten countries with the most refugees are Muslim-majority countries.

Exactly - so those countries are already considered safe for the refugees. Crossing them makes you a migrant, not a refugee.

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

I think you're both wilfully ignorant and frankly, morally bankrupt.

I'm not taking your right for an opinion. And I'm open for discussion and possible change of mind. But you haven't presented any rational reasons which I'm seeking. So again, why should we reward someone just for taking a risk?

[Cyclone 10]

Crossing a safe country as a refugee does not turn you into an economic migrant.

You'll note however that those countries are not necessarily between Syria or Afghanistan and Europe.

 

It would be much more humane of course if refugees could stop at the first safe place and then after having their status determined, they were distributed evenly amongst other safe places, with some level of choice as to where they wanted to go (for example those who speak English might want to come here, those who speak France might want to go somewhere French speaking, those with relatives or friends already somewhere else might wish to go there).

Edited January 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[lil-minx92 10]

27 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Crossing a safe country as a refugee does not turn you into an economic migrant.

You'll note however that those countries are not necessarily between Syria or Afghanistan and Europe.

 

It would be much more humane of course if refugees could stop at the first safe place and then after having their status determined, they were distributed evenly amongst other safe places, with some level of choice as to where they wanted to go (for example those who speak English might want to come here, those who speak France might want to go somewhere French speaking, those with relatives or friends already somewhere else might wish to go there).

Would that not cause a mass exodus from troubled countries (and non troubled countries whose residents might want to re-locate)? It would be chaos. Plus, how do you correctly determine the status of somebody showing up with just the shirt on their back and a story to tell?

Edited January 23, 2019 by lil-minx92
add stuff

[Cyclone 10]

There was already a mass exodus.  Cities were being destroyed and civilians murdered in their 10's of thousands.

 

If people from "non-troubled" countries claimed refugee status, then it would be declined...  I didn't say anything about simply accepting anyone as a refugee no matter where they came from.

 

How do you determine that status?  How do we do it now?  I suppose you have to consider whether many people would seriously leave an untroubled country, where they speak the language, they were born, they have friends and family, and travel, with just the shirt on their back, in order to blag refugee status in a foreign country with a different language, where they'll only be able to do menial work in difficult circumstances.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

That's what's been done now. People are complaining and saying it's not right. My point is, it has to be done at some stage.

Which set of complainants are you on about?

 

Those who condemn the current system as inhumane, or those who condemn the current system as too lenient?

 

I have to ask, because your point is redundant, since what 'has to be done at some stage' is indeed 'what's being done now'.

[I1L2T3 10]

On 04/01/2019 at 19:49, Penistone999 said:

Dont  the other European countries they have travelled through to get here also have large amounts of these people already there ?  

These people?

 

The lack of humanity shocks me at times.

 

It’s depressing 

[RJRB 688]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

Obviously both are dangerous. All I'm saying is it can't be assumed they aren't economic migrants simply for that reason. If economic migrants will cross the med, they'll cross the channel.

You can't simply challenge any concern about immigration assuming it is a battle against the far right though.

I'm moderate and for example have recently helped an Egyptian find a sponsor to stay here, who may have otherwise been at risk of deportation.

I'm still concerned about large scale migration, it isn't limited to far right thugs, who are working to a completely different agenda.

And I am still concerned about the deliberate confusion of the issues and the apparent willingness of this government to facilitate the rise of the far right.

We need an immigration policy,which serves our own interests and recognises that housing,education ,health and social services are part of the equation.

 

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

Which set of complainants are you on about?

 

Those who condemn the current system as inhumane, or those who condemn the current system as too lenient?

 

I have to ask, because your point is redundant, since what 'has to be done at some stage' is indeed 'what's being done now'.

It's in reference to posters who are saying the blocking of illegal migrants is unjust. We have an asylum policy and it has to be enforced. The fact migrants have travelled through safe countries, contrary to what should be done also makes the situation harder to understand.

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Well, we're discussing people crossing the channel, and you've segued into crossing the med.

You know that 170 people drowned just this week crossing the med?  You think that they were taking that huge risk, with their children, just to earn slightly more...

You're moderate.  Haha.

You think that people are risking their lives, making very dangerous sea crossings, with their children, in order to earn slightly more in an unfamiliar country having left behind their place of birth, their friends and extended families.

You've swallowed the right wing propaganda and internalised it.  You're not moderate.

You think it's established that people crossing the med are economic migrants and so you try to use that to show that those crossing the channel are the same.

 

So, can you confirm that the people crossing the med and channel aren't economic migrants? What are they fleeing in their home countries? FCO travel advice to Nigeria, Guinea and Ivory coast suggest excercising caution. They aren't warzones.