UK net migration hits record high

[Hastings gull]

Fair enough.

I'm merely saying that it's better to accept those people, and cope with the strain on the infrastructure and all the other things you mention, than to see children drown in the sea. You must surely see that it's the lesser of two evils?

The idea of establishing a comprehensive aid programme in the countries where refugees come from is a great one but it will take many years, so meanwhile we have to open borders and help as many people as we can rather than conduct "a military operation to close off Europe".

Put like that, then obviously one chooses the lesser of two evils, which I fully accept. For the record, I don't think we have much alternative to assimilating those already here, but my point is that we need to act fast and decisively if we are to stop even more. I have replied to your loaded question, but significantly you avoided my question as to how many millions you want before you say enough is enough.The idea of an aid programme is indeed a good idea, but I am very sceptical that anything would really work in the areas from which they come. Corruption and endemic violence on religious or tribal grounds is so ingrained, that I fear not very much will be improved.
Looking at your exchange with PPF, I do think that you have fallen into the mode of thinking that others do, who see no wrong with mass immigration. They assume an air of moral superiority, and anyone who does not side with their way of thinking is a disgrace, because you are such a good person. PPF was not saying that it was a good thing, but commenting that families know full well the risks of trying to get to Europe, and these tragedies are dreadful, but I do not feel guilty about that. Why should I or you? It was not a question of him "thinking like that" he was just stating a very unfortunate fact of life that this will happen, when folk put their trust in unscrupulous and clearly merciless people traffickers.

 

[Guy Crouchback]

Let me get this straight, first you wrote this...

Where we might find agreement, by the way, is if a comprehensive aid programme is established in their own countries, but this must go hand in hand with, sadly, a military operation to close off Europe.

... advocating aid programme in Syria and other countries refugees come from, and a military closing off of Europe, but now you say that...

The idea of an aid programme is indeed a good idea, but I am very sceptical that anything would really work in the areas from which they come. Corruption and endemic violence on religious or tribal grounds is so ingrained, that I fear not very much will be improved.

... you doubt that any such programme would work. So what IS your solution to the problem?

you avoided my question as to how many millions you want before you say enough is enough.

You don't really expect me to give you the exact number? Extended studies would have to be conducted to establish the number of people Europe would be able to accept, but surely we are nowhere near that number yet. The EU is composed of relatively rich countries, and we can share this wealth with people in need. Why should we? Simply because we CAN, and perhaps also because there is a tiny grain of truth in the words of Frantz Fanon who said: "From all these continents, under whose eyes Europe today raises up her tower of opulence, there has flowed out for centuries toward that same Europe diamonds and oil, silk and cotton, wood and exotic products. Europe is literally the creation of the third world. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the under-developed peoples."

Looking at your exchange with PPF, I do think that you have fallen into the mode of thinking that others do, who see no wrong with mass immigration. They assume an air of moral superiority, and anyone who does not side with their way of thinking is a disgrace, because you are such a good person.

Whether I am a good person or not is irrelevant--it's not about "mode of thinking" or "moral superiority" but about common decency in the face of humanitarian disaster. One doesn't need to be a saint to see that what's happening at the moment is wrong, and that not enough is done to solve the problem.

PPF was not saying that it was a good thing, but commenting that families know full well the risks of trying to get to Europe, and these tragedies are dreadful, but I do not feel guilty about that. Why should I or you?

Maybe because whe made those people "illegal" by not allowing them to come here legally, so children and their parents had to rely on the merciless traffickers and lost their lives as a result? Maybe because what actually happened in Syria and other countries had something to do with the policies of the USA and the EU, and interfering in their internal affairs? I don't know...

 

[beorhthelm]

The idea of establishing a comprehensive aid programme in the countries where refugees come from is a great one but it will take many years

no it wouldn't. it is and has been in the past the standard method of dealing with refugees. its far far cheaper to establish camps where the people are, in the first safe country, than ship and house them elsewhere, and makes it alot easier to repatriate them once the conflict or disaster is over. what is happening is people who are fleeing conflict are using the opportunity to become economic migrants. all those Syrians could safely stop in Turkey (bear in mind an Isil invasion to Turkey invokes full bore NATO engagment, and they arent that silly), but instead push on to the EU, then dont stop there and push to the more affulent nations. there's only one justification for this, economic. lets just be honest about this, start seperating the migrants from the refugees (and asylum seekers), each with their own issues and solutions. we can absorb some economic migrants, we should provide assistance for as many refugees as possible to stay in the first safe country they reach.

 

[Soulman]

no it wouldn't. it is and has been in the past the standard method of dealing with refugees. its far far cheaper to establish camps where the people are, in the first safe country, than ship and house them elsewhere, and makes it alot easier to repatriate them once the conflict or disaster is over. what is happening is people who are fleeing conflict are using the opportunity to become economic migrants. all those Syrians could safely stop in Turkey (bear in mind an Isil invasion to Turkey invokes full bore NATO engagment, and they arent that silly), but instead push on to the EU, then dont stop there and push to the more affulent nations. there's only one justification for this, economic. lets just be honest about this, start seperating the migrants from the refugees (and asylum seekers), each with their own issues and solutions. we can absorb some economic migrants, we should provide assistance for as many refugees as possible to stay in the first safe country they reach.

Eureka, another sensible post. Might i suggest that some of our 55M a DAY to the EU go to the countries like Greece and the other EU countries that have taken the brunt of the problem, might i suggest we cut some of the 300M we give to Ethiopia seeing as some 3M is being spent on a space programme, might i suggest we stop giving money to Argentina, 7M in the last year without the loans of the last 20 years of 225M....are India still get millions each year (another with a space prog) although that might have stopped..........in fact if you look at the amount of foreign aid wasted or given to despots....we could channel that money into the schemes mentioned in the post i am replying to.
It's not rocket science, although it appears it is judging by where some of our taxpayers cash is going.

 

[BadFish]

The way I interpreted your post was that you were implying that little old measly 120,000 were in the queue, in response to my earlier contention that the Brits had already done their bit. Whatever he was or was not saying, 120,000 may be the current figure, but it is not in isolation. You have to take into account the numbers already here, and those likely to come. And those here illegally.

There was no implication in my post. I was just pointing out that your suggesting that the number of refugees (that Bobby Smith was referring to) in the UK was in the millions was incorrect. Way off the mark in fact.

At the end of 2014, the population of refugees, pending asylum cases and stateless persons made up just 0.24% of the population. That’s 117,161 refugees, 36,383 pending asylum cases and 16 stateless persons.

117,161 refugees and 26,383 pending asylum cases (is this what you mean by the queue?)

 

[BadFish]

Let me get this straight, first you wrote this...



... advocating aid programme in Syria and other countries refugees come from, and a military closing off of Europe, but now you say that...



... you doubt that any such programme would work. So what IS your solution to the problem?



You don't really expect me to give you the exact number? Extended studies would have to be conducted to establish the number of people Europe would be able to accept, but surely we are nowhere near that number yet. The EU is composed of relatively rich countries, and we can share this wealth with people in need. Why should we? Simply because we CAN, and perhaps also because there is a tiny grain of truth in the words of Frantz Fanon who said: "From all these continents, under whose eyes Europe today raises up her tower of opulence, there has flowed out for centuries toward that same Europe diamonds and oil, silk and cotton, wood and exotic products. Europe is literally the creation of the third world. The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from the under-developed peoples."



Whether I am a good person or not is irrelevant--it's not about "mode of thinking" or "moral superiority" but about common decency in the face of humanitarian disaster. One doesn't need to be a saint to see that what's happening at the moment is wrong, and that not enough is done to solve the problem.



Maybe because whe made those people "illegal" by not allowing them to come here legally, so children and their parents had to rely on the merciless traffickers and lost their lives as a result? Maybe because what actually happened in Syria and other countries had something to do with the policies of the USA and the EU, and interfering in their internal affairs? I don't know...

Bang on.

 

[BadFish]

the parents did as i said it's a risk that some people want to take, unfortunately these things happen, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF IT
regards
DR

The parents did know the risk you are right, but surely that makes you question what they are running from that makes them put their children is such danger?

 

[BadFish]

Eureka, another sensible post. Might i suggest that some of our 55M a DAY to the EU go to the countries like Greece and the other EU countries that have taken the brunt of the problem, might i suggest we cut some of the 300M we give to Ethiopia seeing as some 3M is being spent on a space programme, might i suggest we stop giving money to Argentina, 7M in the last year without the loans of the last 20 years of 225M....are India still get millions each year (another with a space prog) although that might have stopped..........in fact if you look at the amount of foreign aid wasted or given to despots....we could channel that money into the schemes mentioned in the post i am replying to.
It's not rocket science, although it appears it is judging by where some of our taxpayers cash is going.

Agreed, Aid programs seems to be political rather than humanitarian.

Like you say some of that aid should be redirected to the countries bearing the brunt of this crisis. perhaps we should be sending money to Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and Turkey? Or even better would be to use it to set up more UNHCR refugee camps to enable peoples cases to be processed faster.

 

[BadFish]

Put like that, then obviously one chooses the lesser of two evils, which I fully accept. For the record, I don't think we have much alternative to assimilating those already here, but my point is that we need to act fast and decisively if we are to stop even more. I have replied to your loaded question, but significantly you avoided my question as to how many millions you want before you say enough is enough.The idea of an aid programme is indeed a good idea, but I am very sceptical that anything would really work in the areas from which they come. Corruption and endemic violence on religious or tribal grounds is so ingrained, that I fear not very much will be improved.
Looking at your exchange with PPF, I do think that you have fallen into the mode of thinking that others do, who see no wrong with mass immigration. They assume an air of moral superiority, and anyone who does not side with their way of thinking is a disgrace, because you are such a good person. PPF was not saying that it was a good thing, but commenting that families know full well the risks of trying to get to Europe, and these tragedies are dreadful, but I do not feel guilty about that. Why should I or you? It was not a question of him "thinking like that" he was just stating a very unfortunate fact of life that this will happen, when folk put their trust in unscrupulous and clearly merciless people traffickers.

So with your plan, once you have stopped the asylum seekers coming to the UK what happens to them then?

How does your plan address the 38 million+ displaced people around the world?

 

[carlzeiss]

So with your plan, once you have stopped the asylum seekers coming to the UK what happens to them then?

How does your plan address the 38 million+ displaced people around the world?

So are you saying that we need to invite these 38 million + to the Uk , and then once they are settled invite the next 38 million + ?

 

[BadFish]

So are you saying that we need to invite these 38 million + to the Uk , and then once they are settled invite the next 38 million + ?

No.

 

[Soulman]

So with your plan, once you have stopped the asylum seekers coming to the UK what happens to them then?

How does your plan address the 38 million+ displaced people around the world?

How about your country take the 38 million in, making your population about 54 million, still about 9 million shy of the UK population, in a country 30 times the size of ours....sorted.

 

[Soulman]

Agreed, Aid programs seems to be political rather than humanitarian.

Like you say some of that aid should be redirected to the countries bearing the brunt of this crisis. perhaps we should be sending money to Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and Turkey? Or even better would be to use it to set up more UNHCR refugee camps to enable peoples cases to be processed faster.

Just picking out one of your examples ie Pakistan........
Pakistan is set to receive £1.17bn in support from the UK between 2011 and 2015, making it one of the largest recipients of bilateral aid.

Annual spending will increase from £215m in 2010-2011 to £405m in 2014-15.

Report from the trustworthy BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208964

 

[BadFish]

Just picking out one of your examples ie Pakistan........
Pakistan is set to receive £1.17bn in support from the UK between 2011 and 2015, making it one of the largest recipients of bilateral aid.

Annual spending will increase from £215m in 2010-2011 to £405m in 2014-15.

Report from the trustworthy BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208964

Oh bugger, looks like that doesn't work then but I take the rest of your point about foreign aid.

 

[carlzeiss]

Oh bugger, looks like that doesn't work then but I take the rest of your point about foreign aid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208964

Over £400 million pa to a county with Nukes .

 

[BadFish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208964

Over £400 million pa to a county with Nukes .

Ridiculous.

 

[Soulman]

Oh bugger, looks like that doesn't work then but I take the rest of your point about foreign aid.

I just picked out that one after previously mentioning Ethiopia and India (space programmes) and Argentina.......perhaps look at the amount of aid we give to countries, i suspect some of the other countries you mentioned will be in there.
If you care to take a look i think you will find we give substantial aid to over 50 countries....it all (plus some of the 55m a day to the EU) could be channeled better to help the problems that you and many others are trying to foist on mass immigration to this small green and pleasant land.

 

[Soulman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208964

Over £400 million pa to a county with Nukes .

Some people really need waking up eh.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Unfortunately the only way to solve this problem is to go to war again..

 

[BadFish]

I just picked out that one after previously mentioning Ethiopia and India (space programmes) and Argentina.......perhaps look at the amount of aid we give to countries, i suspect some of the other countries you mentioned will be in there.
If you care to take a look i think you will find we give substantial aid to over 50 countries....it all (plus some of the 55m a day to the EU) could be channeled better to help the problems that you and many others are trying to foist on mass immigration to this small green and pleasant land.

Yep, foreign aid needs to be looked at and reviewed. That money could do far more good elsewhere. It seems to me that foreign aid is too intermingled with global politics and too often used as a bargaining tool