UK net migration hits record high

[BigGully]

Am i to paraphrase that you will be content as long as the problem stays away from the borders of Europe?

Well if you have 10 million displaced Syrians and millions more just as vulnerable, how could you somehow consider a policy of relocation as an option, we obviously couldnt sustain any number that would impact on the overall crisis, an influx of 5% of the overall number has already impacted markedly on Merkels current position withdrawing as we speak from the welcome to Germany stance.

Now if 5% of the less vulnerable refugees is already causing its own problems to the recipient countries it seems reasonable that a better more sustainable solution needs to be found.

So yes, the crisis should be dealt with where possible nearer the area where they have been displaced, of course it needs to be safe, inhabitable and well resourced, but just Europe absorbing an undetermined amount isnt the answer.

 

[BadFish]

you're not quite understanding, and not alone in this, that there is not supposed to be wholesale resettlement of the refugees. how can this ever be viable? as pointed out there are millions displaced, in Syria and many others. do you expect countries to simply accept all refugees, just fly them in to all other nations across the globe, as events demand? presumably then ships them back once the situation changes... except all those who don't want to. maybe you do expect this, however no one else does realistically and this isnt going to change while the west have democracies with populations that ultimately wish to serve their own interests. if you don't like that, better deal with it, because its not going to change, no amount of utopian ideals is going to make it popular to import hundreds of thousands, even millions from abroad to be housed, educated, cared for etc by countries that cant even do that for their own native populations.

Ignoring the condescending tone of your post you seem to have taken my point to an extreme position (not unusual on here). I don't suggest or even think that all refugees can be resettled . What I said was that the system isn't currently functional, as you suggested. If the system was functional (not meaning that all refugees would be resettled) then we would not see the numbers of refugees taking their chances on their own.

 

[BadFish]

Well if you have 10 million displaced Syrians and millions more just as vulnerable, how could you somehow consider a policy of relocation as an option, we obviously couldnt sustain any number that would impact on the overall crisis, an influx of 5% of the overall number has already impacted markedly on Merkels current position withdrawing as we speak from the welcome to Germany stance.

Now if 5% of the less vulnerable refugees is already causing its own problems to the recipient countries it seems reasonable that a better more sustainable solution needs to be found.

So yes, the crisis should be dealt with where possible nearer the area where they have been displaced, of course it needs to be safe, inhabitable and well resourced, but just Europe absorbing an undetermined amount isnt the answer.

A fair comment.

Would you support the UK's involvement in renewed discussion with the UN?

 

[BigGully]

A fair comment.

Would you support the UK's involvement in renewed discussion with the UN?

UK could have discussions with whom they wish, anything that could help the situation would be welcomed.

 

[BadFish]

UK could have discussions with whom they wish, anything that could help the situation would be welcomed.

To me this has to be the next step, I don't really see any other way of finding a solution to this problem.

 

[Hastings gull]

You missed the word 'just'

You are now struggling. hence the usual "clever dick" response.

 

[BadFish]

You are now struggling. hence the usual "clever dick" response.

Once again, your poor comprehension skills let you down. If you don't see the importance of the word 'just' in this discussion then there really is little point in having it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ignoring the condescending tone of your post you seem to have taken my point to an extreme position (not unusual on here). I don't suggest or even think that all refugees can be resettled . What I said was that the system isn't currently functional, as you suggested. If the system was functional (not meaning that all refugees would be resettled) then we would not see the numbers of refugees taking their chances on their own.

you are not recognising what the purpose or function of refugee camps are. it is to hold the refugees, to give them shelter and basic care. it is not to resettle them to another part of the world. i'm not taking an extreme position, im highlighting the natural consequence of making the assumption that part of the role of refugee camps is to resettle the occupants. the exit strategy for the camps is to return occupants to their original home lands and nations. as a matter of good will we take a large number out of the camps for extraordinary reasons, but it is not the intended purpose for them to act as staging areas for migration.

if you want to advocate that purpose, then find a platform to do so and spell it out in those terms,. maybe i'm wrong and there is a great deal of support for this and a consensus can work on the framework for how this is implemented. i don't see myself.

 

[Hastings gull]

Well if you have 10 million displaced Syrians and millions more just as vulnerable, how could you somehow consider a policy of relocation as an option, we obviously couldnt sustain any number that would impact on the overall crisis, an influx of 5% of the overall number has already impacted markedly on Merkels current position withdrawing as we speak from the welcome to Germany stance.

Now if 5% of the less vulnerable refugees is already causing its own problems to the recipient countries it seems reasonable that a better more sustainable solution needs to be found.

So yes, the crisis should be dealt with where possible nearer the area where they have been displaced, of course it needs to be safe, inhabitable and well resourced, but just Europe absorbing an undetermined amount isnt the answer.

This is obviously the solution, or at least a solution of sorts, as we simply cannot go on like this. It might be a compromise if western governments en masse decide to chip in and make the camps more hospitable with considerable financial assistance, overseen by the UN. But of course countries like Turkey and Lebanon may not be so happy, and justifiably say they already have enough. And given that thousands come to Europe as refugees and then morph into economic migrants as they cherry pick the wealthiest countries, would future refugees even want to go to Turkey etc,

 

[Hastings gull]

But the system isn't functional and its not functional because countries don't take enough people out of the camps. The choice is go to a camp and wait years and years (the average is currently around 17 years) to find refuge or chance your arm with the people smugglers. One of the reasons that their are so many people prepared to risk their lives to try and get to Europe and Australia is that the refugee camps and the quotas taken from them are woefully inadequate for the number of refugees out there. The situation has been coming for a long time because most western countries have buried their heads in the sand about the size and scale of the problem.

It is probably a good idea to stick to the topic and not lecture others on skills . .

 

[BadFish]

you are not recognising what the purpose or function of refugee camps are. it is to hold the refugees, to give them shelter and basic care. it is not to resettle them to another part of the world. im not taking an extreme position, im highlighting the natural consequence of making the assumption that part of the role of refugee camps is to resettle the occupants. the exit strategy for the camps is to return occupants to their original home lands and nations. as a matter of good will we take a large number out of the camps for extraordinary reasons, but it is not the intended purpose for them to act as staging areas for migration.

I didn't say you were taking an extreme position, i said that you had pushed my point to an extreme.

You are not recognizing that the purpose of refugee camps is not limited to providing shelter and basic care. But even if you take your limited definition it still stands that if the system were functional then the refugees would be going to get shelter and basic care at camps rather than running the gauntlet for hundred of dangerous miles to get somewhere else.

 

[BadFish]

It is probably a good idea to stick to the topic and not lecture others on skills . .

You really are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[beorhthelm]

You are not recognizing that the purpose of refugee camps is not limited to providing shelter and basic care.

yes it is, unless you care to point to some definition or mandate from an organisation that says otherwise.

the refugees are not running a gauntlet for safety, food, shelter, etc, they are trying to do better for themselves than that. now i dont blame them for that, i wouldn't care to stay in a tent in a desert for weeks let along months or years, but we need be more honest about the motivations. and address them accordingly. if refugee camps should be something more than they are, make them into semi permanent settlements, then thats certainly a debate to have and probably something to gain wide support (even if we still end up footing the bill). what gets me is that for decades the UK, along with about a dozen other nations, regularly resettled large numbers from those refugee camps, now the Germans want us "to do more". they are just catching up.

 

[BadFish]

yes it is, unless you care to point to some definition or mandate from an organisation that says otherwise.

Given that refugee camps do resettle people it can be safely assumed that resettling people is another of their purposes.

the refugees are not running a gauntlet for safety, food, shelter, etc, they are trying to do better for themselves than that. now i dont blame them for that, i wouldn't care to stay in a tent in a desert for weeks let along months or years, but we need be more honest about the motivations. and address them accordingly.

This seems to be at the centre of the discussion on this thread and while it is inaccurate to generalise i would have to disagree with your assertion. On the whole i believe these people are fleeing war and persecution and are primarily looking for safety. I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home. I don't doubt that there are some who will stay in the country where they are resettled, i don't even doubt that there are some who begin their journey with this in mind. but to me to suggest they are trying to better themselves is disingenuous to their situation. -

If refugee camps should be something more than they are, make them into semi permanent settlements, then thats certainly a debate to have and probably something to gain wide support (even if we still end up footing the bill).

I agree that this is a viable option (although i would suggest that this should have been done years ago)

What gets me is that for decades the UK, along with about a dozen other nations, regularly resettled large numbers from those refugee camps, now the Germans want us "to do more". they are just catching up.

It was my understanding that Germany has been taking more refugees than the UK for an number of years now. You obviously have some stats that I haven't come across. Would you mind sharing them?

 

[beorhthelm]

Given that refugee camps do resettle people it can be safely assumed that resettling people is another of their purposes.

again, you confuse your perception of purpose with stated purpose. i get it, you really dont want to understand the difference. the refugees that are resettled are a fortunate by product of some countries appetite for aid and assistance.

This seems to be at the centre of the discussion on this thread and while it is inaccurate to generalise i would have to disagree with your assertion. On the whole i believe these people are fleeing war and persecution and are primarily looking for safety.

the camps are safe, at least compared to a warzone. many of those "fleeing" Syria have in fact been doing so for some time. after some times years in Turkey they've decided to move on. and why not, Syria doesn't look like resolving, better to make a new life elsewhere. the poster child for this crisis was in such a family, denied entry to Canada, on way to Germany instead.

It was my understanding that Germany has been taking more refugees than the UK for an number of years now. You obviously have some stats that I haven't come across. Would you mind sharing them?

depends on your count of "years" they have taken in more the past few years, not so much longer term. i wasn't making reference to total numbers, i dont know who has the biggest score there, i was making a point about directly taking refugees from camps according to need, rather than the alternative approach of taking migrants arriving at ones border according to ability.

 

[Soulman]

To me this has to be the next step, I don't really see any other way of finding a solution to this problem.

Obviously they cannot escape to countries similar to their beliefs because they all seem to be at war as well, and before the trusted response that the West caused the problem, I mean countries where we had no involvement. In short if these countries stopped the killing, maybe moved into the 21st century, then the West might not be obliged/have to take the fall out.

 

[Hastings gull]

Given that refugee camps do resettle people it can be safely assumed that resettling people is another of their purposes.



This seems to be at the centre of the discussion on this thread and while it is inaccurate to generalise i would have to disagree with your assertion. On the whole i believe these people are fleeing war and persecution and are primarily looking for safety. I have seen little to suggest that these people do not want to return home when it is safe to do so. Infact quite the opposite, the people i have met want nothing more than to return to their home. I don't doubt that there are some who will stay in the country where they are resettled, i don't even doubt that there are some who begin their journey with this in mind. but to me to suggest they are trying to better themselves is disingenuous to their situation. -



I agree that this is a viable option (although i would suggest that this should have been done years ago)



It was my understanding that Germany has been taking more refugees than the UK for an number of years now. You obviously have some stats that I haven't come across. Would you mind sharing them?

That says it all about you. So, of the hundreds of thousands this year, to say nothing of the millions that have already settled in Europe fleeing for whatever purpose - they all or at least the vast majority, want to go home at the earliest opportunity. Unbelievable! The people you have met (whatever that means) are not the ones we are talking about on this thread.

 

[symyjym]

Really? At best, they thought Saddam had WMDs and wanted to make the region safe, at worst they wanted to topple a leader they didn't like and impose their own ideals of a democracy on Iraq. I've no idea what was in their minds, but surely it's not as bad as just killing as many non believing citizens as possible?

They knew he did not have WMD. Dr Kelly and Hans Blix made this clear but we were still sold the war on this. You cannot bomb a country into democracy because it is a contradiction. We all knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but it was used to gain support for the war from the American public.

We cannot simply look at 9/11 as the start because the policies in the Middle East have been bonkers for decades. In 1953 Iran was the first Middle Eastern country to have a democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, but because he was going to nationalise their oil industry the CIA and Britain organised the coup to depose him and replaced him with the Shah. Our own ideals of dictatorship were imposed on Iran, so we cannot have it both ways.

Iran were fully justified in getting rid of the Shah and after decades now have a democratically elected leader again. Although they were painted as one of the axis of evil by Bush.

Saddam was used and was financed militarily by America to fight their war against Iran 1980-88. They also used and supported the Mujahideen to fight the Russians.

This documentary “The Secret of the Seven Sisters” gives a fair and factual overview to the history of the Middle East and oil.

It is easier for me, for you to have a look at the video doumentary rather than me trying to write my view on NSC because it contains all the background to my formed opinion. You may well already know the history but the doc is a good overview and is an easy watch.

https://youtu.be/_TXG70xAnSU

But regarding the Iraq war we heard all rhetoric from Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair but we never heard the message from Bin Laden. America was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11 and Bin Laden knew this. Depending on the narrative 9/11 was designed to end US aggression towards the Muslim world and stop the impending planned attacks in the Middle East..

I have only just paid notice to what Bin Laden's message was and at the very least it is very interesting, if not well measured in comparison to the Bush Blair rhetoric. http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/al-qaeda/bin-laden-message.htm

I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of that. Presumably they're targeting military installations, and much of what we hear is defensive fire.

The "Shock & Awe" was glorifying an act of aggression, showing off our might to a live global TV audience and making it look like a computer game. I don't think it was just military installations, any restaurant or building that they thought Saddam was in was a target too, not forgetting all the bombs that would have gone astray. Either way it would be terrifying for the innocent people under or near to it. That was just the first night btw.

Now whilst I believe that there had to be action taken after 9/11, it should not have gone further than Afghanistan. Our leaders lost us the moral high ground by invading Iraq and it lends some credence to Bin Laden’s knowledge that America was planning an attack in the ME anyway pre 9/11.

As it stands Bin Laden was against Al Qaeda In Iraq for being too extreme, who then splintered off to form ISIS with absolutely no moral boundaries or thought process. Their only aim is to destroy and kill everything in front of them.

But apart from all of this, if 9/11 didn't happen, the invasion of Iraq was still going to. Bin Laden hasn't got anything to do with the chaos that is going on now, it is purely a reaction to the path that Bush/Blair chose.

Personally I am tired with all the half truths and lies we have been told and the only way forward is to understand, look at both sides, admit to our own mistakes, and not turn a blind eye and deny them.

Just to be clear, it is possible to understand the angst of the ME without condoning 9/11, and going to war in Iraq lends weight to the angst felt pre 9/11.

We have all heard of the butterfly effect, but this was no butterfly.

 

[Triggaaar]

They knew he did not have WMD. Dr Kelly and Hans Blix made this clear

Is that widely accepted as fact, as opposed to an opinion? My understanding was that 'we' were too eager to depose Saddam and accepted the evidence of WMDs without enough investigation, but that's very different to the claim that 'we' knew.

As it stands Bin Laden was against Al Qaeda In Iraq for being too extreme, who then splintered off to form ISIS with absolutely no moral boundaries or thought process.

Do you mean that Bin Laden was against Al Qaeda in Iraq pre or post 9/11?

 

[symyjym]

Is that widely accepted as fact, as opposed to an opinion? My understanding was that 'we' were too eager to depose Saddam and accepted the evidence of WMDs without enough investigation, but that's very different to the claim that 'we' knew.

Do you mean that Bin Laden was against Al Qaeda in Iraq pre or post 9/11?

An educated hands on opinion, unlike Blair's. At the time I believed the UN's weapon inspector/team so it's not a surprise to me that it turned out to be true. I don't think my choice of words makes too much difference but there was no smoking gun evidence to support the claim of WMD. It was only an uneducated opinion that he did, which was not fact.

Al Qaeda weren't in Iraq pre 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda In Iraq (AQI) are a different. AQI's leader was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3483089.stm

Zarqawi and bin Laden disagreed over strategy: The former had constructed his al-Tawhid network primarily to target Jews and Jordan. This choice reflected both Zarqawi's Palestinian heritage and his dissent from bin Laden's strategy of focusing on the "far enemy" -- the United States.

This slaughter of Shias touched on another Zarqawi disagreement with bin Laden. Whereas the latter made numerous tactical alliances with Shia groups, Zarqawi favored butchering Shias, calling them "the most evil of mankind … the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=788

ISIS is an al-Zarqawi dream, not bin Ladens.