Calais transfer.
Discussion
blindswelledrat said:
Scotty2 said:
They are not "Genuine Refugees" but Economic Migrants. Fact.
Putting 'Fact' after typing a vague thought supported by zero evidence is a stupid thing to do.irocfan said:
to be fair while you are correct in your assertion regarding 'fact', I'd be inclined to agree with the EM perspective rather than being genuine.
Here's why I disagree:Taking the assumption that on the whole we are talking about Syrians/Afghans etc how many refuges from those countries tried to get to Europe prior to these horrific wars (caused largely by us)? Very few. I cant find numbers but I assume we agree that prior to the last few years those countries have never been a 'problem' where immigration is concerned.
Now there have been nasty violent wars where many civilians have had it from all sides and whos lives have been endangered every day, there are suddenly millions.
What the most likely explanation?
1)That the wars and incessant fears for their live with friends and family dying around them have caused them to want to migrate to a safer/better place
2)That suddenly all at the same time millions of previously content people have simultaneously decided that they want to earn more money elsewhere.
I think that an rational person has to conclude that the vast majority are genuine refugees. The inevitable bleating back to this that the preferred destination being Britain rather than Italy/Greece somehow cancels this fact out is nonsensical.
blindswelledrat said:
irocfan said:
to be fair while you are correct in your assertion regarding 'fact', I'd be inclined to agree with the EM perspective rather than being genuine.
Here's why I disagree:Taking the assumption that on the whole we are talking about Syrians/Afghans etc how many refuges from those countries tried to get to Europe prior to these horrific wars (caused largely by us)? Very few. I cant find numbers but I assume we agree that prior to the last few years those countries have never been a 'problem' where immigration is concerned.
Now there have been nasty violent wars where many civilians have had it from all sides and whos lives have been endangered every day, there are suddenly millions.
What the most likely explanation?
1)That the wars and incessant fears for their live with friends and family dying around them have caused them to want to migrate to a safer/better place
2)That suddenly all at the same time millions of previously content people have simultaneously decided that they want to earn more money elsewhere.
I think that an rational person has to conclude that the vast majority are genuine refugees. The inevitable bleating back to this that the preferred destination being Britain rather than Italy/Greece somehow cancels this fact out is nonsensical.
Last time I checked, British support of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both now and at the time, was tenuous at best. It is a little unfair to visit the consequences of actions of HM Govt on the population.
As for people being slightly cynical - who can blame them really when all the obfuscation and PC bulls
t.
I would, however, agree that for a good many of these migrants, their chances of survival, let alone success in their home nations are tragically slim. I would also argue that with proper help and integration, a good many of them will make for successful UK citizens, but it needs managing and our government has not been too successful with that thus far.
I am also uneasy and unsure about the logic of the UK being able to take, point blank, everyone who wishes to come here from some forlorn, third world nation.
As for people being slightly cynical - who can blame them really when all the obfuscation and PC bulls
t.I would, however, agree that for a good many of these migrants, their chances of survival, let alone success in their home nations are tragically slim. I would also argue that with proper help and integration, a good many of them will make for successful UK citizens, but it needs managing and our government has not been too successful with that thus far.
I am also uneasy and unsure about the logic of the UK being able to take, point blank, everyone who wishes to come here from some forlorn, third world nation.
andymc said:
blindswelledrat said:
irocfan said:
to be fair while you are correct in your assertion regarding 'fact', I'd be inclined to agree with the EM perspective rather than being genuine.
Here's why I disagree:Taking the assumption that on the whole we are talking about Syrians/Afghans etc how many refuges from those countries tried to get to Europe prior to these horrific wars (caused largely by us)? Very few. I cant find numbers but I assume we agree that prior to the last few years those countries have never been a 'problem' where immigration is concerned.
Now there have been nasty violent wars where many civilians have had it from all sides and whos lives have been endangered every day, there are suddenly millions.
What the most likely explanation?
1)That the wars and incessant fears for their live with friends and family dying around them have caused them to want to migrate to a safer/better place
2)That suddenly all at the same time millions of previously content people have simultaneously decided that they want to earn more money elsewhere.
I think that an rational person has to conclude that the vast majority are genuine refugees. The inevitable bleating back to this that the preferred destination being Britain rather than Italy/Greece somehow cancels this fact out is nonsensical.
Give them an invite and offer to pick them up just off the Libyan coast and it suddenly seems doable.
Andymc.
Remember the advice handed out by the Blackburn Muslim Association - a woman can travel no more than 48 miles unaccompanied ? They cant leave the country without a male chaperon, there is no way God would have allowed them to get to Europe unaccompanied.
andymc said:
blindswelledrat said:
irocfan said:
to be fair while you are correct in your assertion regarding 'fact', I'd be inclined to agree with the EM perspective rather than being genuine.
Here's why I disagree:Taking the assumption that on the whole we are talking about Syrians/Afghans etc how many refuges from those countries tried to get to Europe prior to these horrific wars (caused largely by us)? Very few. I cant find numbers but I assume we agree that prior to the last few years those countries have never been a 'problem' where immigration is concerned.
Now there have been nasty violent wars where many civilians have had it from all sides and whos lives have been endangered every day, there are suddenly millions.
What the most likely explanation?
1)That the wars and incessant fears for their live with friends and family dying around them have caused them to want to migrate to a safer/better place
2)That suddenly all at the same time millions of previously content people have simultaneously decided that they want to earn more money elsewhere.
I think that an rational person has to conclude that the vast majority are genuine refugees. The inevitable bleating back to this that the preferred destination being Britain rather than Italy/Greece somehow cancels this fact out is nonsensical.
The younger, stronger men with less ties have a greater ability to choose their destination.
THis in no way undermines the point I made above.
If you lived in Manchester and it was invaded by ISIS, if you chose to go to London instead of Sheffield would that make you an economic migrant?
Of course not.
blindswelledrat said:
If you lived in Manchester and it was invaded by ISIS, if you chose to go to London instead of Sheffield would that make you an economic migrant?
Of course not.
Of course not.
But if you chose to go to Switzerland it would, passing through safe countries to get a particular country is the difference.
PRTVR said:
blindswelledrat said:
If you lived in Manchester and it was invaded by ISIS, if you chose to go to London instead of Sheffield would that make you an economic migrant?
Of course not.
Of course not.
But if you chose to go to Switzerland it would, passing through safe countries to get a particular country is the difference.
I am not saying it is right that they come to britain, I am merely ridiculing the notion that someone fleeing for their lives from Isis is an economic migrant
blindswelledrat said:
PRTVR said:
blindswelledrat said:
If you lived in Manchester and it was invaded by ISIS, if you chose to go to London instead of Sheffield would that make you an economic migrant?
Of course not.
Of course not.
But if you chose to go to Switzerland it would, passing through safe countries to get a particular country is the difference.
I am not saying it is right that they come to britain, I am merely ridiculing the notion that someone fleeing for their lives from Isis is an economic migrant
Fleeing for your life stops when you are safe from the thing that threatens your life,after that your reasons for moving on become economic.
italianjob1275 said:
The result of a 3 hour train journey to a migrant holding centre. Obviously the refugee trainee cancer doctor children where very grateful... 
Nothing to do with recent events in Calais though. The pictures are from a Swedish train, taken in 2015 - https://asylkaos.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/nar-asyl...rscott said:
italianjob1275 said:
The result of a 3 hour train journey to a migrant holding centre. Obviously the refugee trainee cancer doctor children where very grateful...
Nothing to do with recent events in Calais though. The pictures are from a Swedish train, taken in 2015 - https://asylkaos.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/nar-asyl...irocfan said:
rscott said:
italianjob1275 said:
The result of a 3 hour train journey to a migrant holding centre. Obviously the refugee trainee cancer doctor children where very grateful...
Nothing to do with recent events in Calais though. The pictures are from a Swedish train, taken in 2015 - https://asylkaos.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/nar-asyl...http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_58358de2e4b0207d...
Nearly a third of the "children" have gone missing... well who'd have thought?
Nearly a third of the "children" have gone missing... well who'd have thought?
italianjob1275 said:
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_58358de2e4b0207d...
Nearly a third of the "children" have gone missing... well who'd have thought?
Oh I do hope they're ok.Nearly a third of the "children" have gone missing... well who'd have thought?
From my reading of it they've pretty much all gone missing. Of 386 tracked 222 are unlocated, 119 arrived illegally in the UK, and I am sure will be swiftly deported for breaking the law, so as to send a stiff message to others thinking of entering illegally. It gives some different numbers lower down
25 "children" arrived legally and are now collecting a state pension.
It’s a joke.
Not a funny joke. A "black is white" unreality joke, and a cruel one. One where the tax payer and the rape victim and the genuinely persecuted are dupes and where the kindly pop stars and politicians are pranksters.
Every single one of these "children" who we let is an affront to truth and justice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff