the Migrant Crisis

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yeah, but you're basically a racist

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

I think Cooper has it right, there's certainly more the UK needs to be doing in terms of accepting refugees. We're one of the worst in West at the moment, and net migration figures are irrelevant, refugees from war are a different case.

What is also true is that seems to be very little process in place to make sure refugees are being looked after, and those looking to 'illegally' migrate identified.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Yeah, but you're basically a racist

Oh come on now, even the most cowardly of ideologues usually give the debate a little go before waving the ad hominem white flag. You haven't even given Red a chance to accuse me of being in the BNP yet!

 

[AÐALSTEINN]

They are economic migrants with only one destination : UK.

 

[Red]

I think Cooper has it right, there's certainly more the UK needs to be doing in terms of accepting refugees. We're one of the worst in West at the moment, and net migration figures are irrelevant, refugees from war are a different case.

What is also true is that seems to be very little process in place to make sure refugees are being looked after, and those looking to 'illegally' migrate identified.

But they're all brown people so what difference does it make if they're economic migrants or refugees? They'll still be taking our women and jobs and trying to indoctrinate decent white folk with Islam.

Right Adalsteinn?

They're not all economic migrants and they're not all coming here. Who's been filling your head with that shit?

 

[Womble98]

Ideally, we should reduce the numbers of migrants coming from Eastern Europe which would allow us to take in more refugees who are genuine asylum seekers.

What is crucial though is how any migrants are assimilated. I read something interesting today about a situation in Austria at one point. They used to have mandatory lessons in German for any asylum seekers, and there were attempts by many left wing parties to end this as it was in their eyes not accommodating of other cultures. Huge numbers of women from Middle Eastern backgrounds came out in protest however against this ban, as it would lead to them being disempowered, unable to act for themselves in a country in which they did not speak the language.

If a Syrian man moves here with next to no English skills, where is he going to go? To an area solely dominated with Arabic speakers. Where is he going to shop? Just in that area at shops where the owner speaks Arabic? Who is he going to work with? People who spin eak Arabic. That is what leads to a segregated society in which hatred and distrust between different ethnicities is allowed to be fostered. So, anyone who comes as a refugee must have mandatory English lessons in order to be eligible for benefits for example.

 

[Red]

Asylum seekers ar

Ideally, we should reduce the numbers of migrants coming from Eastern Europe which would allow us to take in more refugees who are genuine asylum seekers.

What is crucial though is how any migrants are assimilated. I read something interesting today about a situation in Austria at one point. They used to have mandatory lessons in German for any asylum seekers, and there were attempts by many left wing parties to end this as it was in their eyes not accommodating of other cultures. Huge numbers of women from Middle Eastern backgrounds came out in protest however against this ban, as it would lead to them being disempowered, unable to act for themselves in a country in which they did not speak the language.

If a Syrian man moves here with next to no English skills, where is he going to go? To an area solely dominated with Arabic speakers. Where is he going to shop? Just in that area at shops where the owner speaks Arabic? Who is he going to work with? People who spin eak Arabic. That is what leads to a segregated society in which hatred and distrust between different ethnicities is allowed to be fostered. So, anyone who comes as a refugee must have mandatory English lessons in order to be eligible for benefits for example.

Asylum seekers aren't entitled to benefits regardless of whether or not they learn English. I suspect the vast majority of people coming here want to learn English for the reasons you state . I used to know quite a few asylum seekers and all of them could speak English to varying degrees before they came here. The one's not that good welcomed the opportunity to do ESOL courses. Of course if the government stipulate learning English as a condition of living here then it must fund ESOL courses as asylum seekers have no recourse to public funds.

 

[spireite]

Asylum seekers ar


Asylum seekers aren't entitled to benefits regardless of whether or not they learn English. I suspect the vast majority of people coming here want to learn English for the reasons you state . I used to know quite a few asylum seekers and all of them could speak English to varying degrees before they came here. The one's not that good welcomed the opportunity to do ESOL courses. Of course if the government stipulate learning English as a condition of living here then it must fund ESOL courses as asylum seekers have no recourse to public funds.

This isn't quite true either Red. They can claim free housing and a cash allowance alá job seekers (it's not a lot, but hey). They also get maternity payments and free access to the NHS. You really should check these statements you're putting across as fact.

The problem with this situation is that the argument has become polarized and it really stops any decent debate on the subject

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Strange how our attitudes differ from that of Gerrnans. I read a report about Germany's response to the issue and within it was a poll that had been conducted. 70% of Gernans welcomed refugees.

Germany also has fascist groups burning down asylum seeker hostels and murdering migrants, with the protection of the German deep-state. There's a really grim Nazi resurgance there (some would say it never truly went away).

Not to defend Britain, obviously, which is an insular racist shit-hole, but let's not let Germany off the hook either.

 

[spireite]

Germany also has fascist groups burning down asylum seeker hostels and murdering migrants, with the protection of the German deep-state. There's a really grim Nazi resurgance (some would say it never truly went away) there.

Not to defend Britain, obviously, which is an insular racist shit-hole, but let's not let Germany off the hook either.

Are you going to back this up with anything, or are you just going a little OTT?

 

[mnb089mnb]

Are you going to back this up with anything, or are you just going a little OTT?

Yeah, it's not a shit-hole.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Refugees covers the situation far more accurately.

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the distinction between "refugee" and "migrant" - as though one is good and deserving and needs to be helped, yet we're fine with the bad undeserving ones dying on our borders.

Can see why people prefer to use "refugee" but that allows people like Yvette Cooper to distinguish between the two to allow her to continue to support racist border policies. After all, drowned kids are drowned kids whether they are fleeing war, repressive government or economic hardship.

It would be great in the short term for the government to take in more many more Syrian asylum seekers, but without fighting borders/immigration control in general, people will continue to die attempting to enter Europe/Britain.

 

[HertsWolf]

If only we did compassion and political strategy in Britain as well as we do stereotyping and smug political sound-bites.
The current crisis in Europe is not a migrant crisis, it's a refugee crisis of a scale not seen in generations.
Large numbers of people are escaping war, famine and an absence of the most basic civil society.

Glib comments about the country being 'full up' are akin to the existing occupants of a lifeboat saying that they simply cannot go beyond the recommended seating capacity and advising others not to cling to pieces of floating wreckage because it's company property. In a disaster, you help and sort out the issues later.

For many centuries the North has taken the natural resources, the agricultural produce, the wealth, the best people and the trained professionals from the South. In return we have provided much of the rest of the world with shiploads of guns and propped up clusterfuck governments, genocidal dictators and corrupt ruling elites in order to get more oil, gas, copper, tin, wheat, palm oil and tobacco. We take the best of what they have, and give them shit charity songs and abject misery and then tell them to stay the fuck where they are while we enjoy the luscious fruits of the world. You really think that all the oil and copper and gold money goes to the ordinary people of all these nations?

Our countries created this utter fiasco across huge swathes of the world. No-one is immune from the need now to look after the people who were left in the wake of our political uselessness.
The problems we left behind in **their** countries? Well they have decided to bring those problems here.
Deal with it, because there isn't a fence high enough Europe can build.

[Edited]

 

[blade1889]

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the distinction between "refugee" and "migrant" - as though one is good and deserving and needs to be helped, yet we're fine with the bad undeserving ones dying on our borders.

Can see why people prefer to use "refugee" but that allows people like Yvette Cooper to distinguish between the two to allow her to continue to support racist border policies. After all, drowned kids are drowned kids whether they are fleeing war, repressive government or economic hardship.

It would be great in the short term for the government to take in more many more Syrian asylum seekers, but without fighting borders/immigration control in general, people will continue to die attempting to enter Europe/Britain.

Interesting point I'd not really thought about before. Let people in, give them the aid they need will only encourage more dangerous crossings leading to more death. Hmmmm...

 

[HertsWolf]

Interesting point I'd not really thought about before. Let people in, give them the aid they need will only encourage more dangerous crossings leading to more death. Hmmmm...

Whereas they could stay at home and risk starvation, famine, execution, religious persecution, poverty, sexual violence.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Interesting point I'd not really thought about before. Let people in, give them the aid they need will only encourage more dangerous crossings leading to more death. Hmmmm...

I don't think that's the case (I think most undocumented migrants know very little about how they will be treated when they reach Britain).

I mean, if we give asylum 10,000 Syrian refugees yet don't actually address the crisis as a whole and congratulate ourselves for our humanity while failing to show the same humanity from those fleeing other conflicts, or economic hardship or political repression we will see the same results.

Fundamentally, international movement must become easier and people must not be forced into extremely dangerous journeys to seek sanctuary or employment in Western Europe.

 

[spireite]

If only we did compassion and political strategy in Britain as well as we do stereotyping and smug political sound-bites.
The current crisis in Europe is not a migrant crisis, it's a refugee crisis of a scale not seen in generations.
Large numbers of people are escaping war, famine and an absence of the most basic civil society.

Glib comments about the country being 'full up' are akin to the existing occupants of a lifeboat saying that they simply cannot go beyond the recommended seating capacity and advising others not to cling to pieces of floating wreckage because it's company property. In a disaster, you help and sort out the issues later.

Then we hear Baroness Smug Warsi on Radio 4 talking about separating the refugees from economic migrants as if this was some kind of line up for a snog at the youth club. It's a mass stampede for the exit after a fire has broken out, you dumbest, sorriest, most pathetic excuse for a politician.

For many centuries the North has taken the natural resources, the agricultural produce, the wealth, the best people and the trained professionals from the South. In return we have provided much of the rest of the world with shiploads of guns and propped up clusterfuck governments, genocidal dictators and corrupt ruling elites in order to get more oil, gas, copper, tin, wheat, palm oil and tobacco. We take the best of what they have, and give them shit charity songs and abject misery and then tell them to stay the fuck where they are while we enjoy the luscious fruits of the world. You really think that all the oil and copper and gold money goes to the ordinary people of all these nations?

Our countries created this utter fiasco across huge swathes of the world. No-one is immune from the need now to look after the people who were left in the wake of our political uselessness.
The problems we left behind in **their** countries? Well they have decided to bring those problems here.
Deal with it, because there isn't a fence high enough Europe can build.

Then try to stop the problem at source, instead of opening borders to anyone who wants in. Why don't these refugees/migrants stop in Poland? The Czech Republic? They pass these countries to get to Germany et al, so it can't all be about safety. It sounds xenophobic, but it's just not, this country can not support too many more people. Unless you start mowing down our greenbelt land and sub-sidising housing companies to build on them, we simply don't have the housing network to support much more population growth. It's just a matter of logistics as much as anything else. As any half way decent human I feel for these people, but we can't fix every humanitarian problem in the world by just opening borders. I'd be for setting 'safe zones' in Syria where we can provide refugees with safety and basic supplies. Europe would be better served trying to fix the problem in Syria instead of arguing over the symptoms.

 

[HertsWolf]

Then try to stop the problem at source, instead of opening borders to anyone who wants in. Why don't these refugees/migrants stop in Poland? The Czech Republic? They pass these countries to get to Germany et al, so it can't all be about safety. It sounds xenophobic, but it's just not, this country can not support too many more people. Unless you start mowing down our greenbelt land and sub-sidising housing companies to build on them, we simply don't have the housing network to support much more population growth. It's just a matter of logistics as much as anything else. As any half way decent human I feel for these people, but we can't fix every humanitarian problem in the world by just opening borders. I'd be for setting 'safe zones' in Syria where we can provide refugees with safety and basic supplies. Europe would be better served trying to fix the problem in Syria instead of arguing over the symptoms.

It might help if you actually read just a little about the crisis.
Most DO ask for asylum earlier. Just a small fraction make it to Calais and then the UK. More go to Germany, the Netherlands or Scandinavia because these nations accept them. The UK has legally accepted just 187 Syrians as asylum seekers; Turkey has now accepted almost 1.7 million.

The UK accepts less migrants and refugees than most other countries. German accepted four times as many as us last year, France, Sweden and Italy all took three times as many. Per head we are even further behind, with Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria accepting many more than us.

I am so sorry that we might have to build houses on greenbelt land (wow, have you got your priorities in an interesting order) to provide housing for people but this is a humanitarian disaster of our won making. You personally are benefiting from cheap oil, copper, cobalt, tin, lead, gas for which the payments have propped up dictators and murderous regimes. I am sorry your view will be spoiled. Maybe you can move to the outskirts of Damascus, Mogadishu, Kabul or Lubumbashi where I her there is spare housing.

I don't think you sound xenophobic, just naive: you want all the creature comforts (like a nice view) while others are executed and starve to death. You've just reinvented Maslow's hierarchy. But well done on the compassion bit. I'd also hate for some lonely, scared Syrian child to lie dead on a beach where I was trying to sunbathe and do the Daily Mail crossword.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Then try to stop the problem at source, instead of opening borders to anyone who wants in. Why don't these refugees/migrants stop in Poland? The Czech Republic? They pass these countries to get to Germany et al, so it can't all be about safety. It sounds xenophobic, but it's just not, this country can not support too many more people. Unless you start mowing down our greenbelt land and sub-sidising housing companies to build on them, we simply don't have the housing network to support much more population growth. It's just a matter of logistics as much as anything else. As any half way decent human I feel for these people, but we can't fix every humanitarian problem in the world by just opening borders. I'd be for setting 'safe zones' in Syria where we can provide refugees with safety and basic supplies. Europe would be better served trying to fix the problem in Syria instead of arguing over the symptoms.

Do you think "safe zones" in Syria (if such things were possible) have the infrastructure to support millions of displaced people? Refugee camps aren't a viable solution.

As for how to "fix the problems in Syria" no-one seems to have any idea how to do that either. I think we in the West need to consider how to dismantle our neocolonial foreign policy. That involves not arming repressive regimes; not funding terrorists through mining conflict minerals; not allowing western multinationals to exploit and destabilise workers/countries in the global south.

But that's a long-term agenda and certainly doesn't do an awful lot to help displaced civilians in Syria.

 

[blade1889]

Whereas they could stay at home and risk starvation, famine, execution, religious persecution, poverty, sexual violence.

I don't think that's the case (I think most undocumented migrants know very little about how they will be treated when they reach Britain).

I mean, if we give asylum 10,000 Syrian refugees yet don't actually address the crisis as a whole and congratulate ourselves for our humanity while failing to show the same humanity from those fleeing other conflicts, or economic hardship or political repression we will see the same results.

Fundamentally, international movement must become easier and people must not be forced into extremely dangerous journeys to seek sanctuary or employment in Western Europe.

Double edged sword really. Stay at home under bad conditions or risk your lives.

As said earlier in an ideal world we'd be able to make it so the journeys weren't necessary. We're trying to tackle it by making it a pointless journey which is wrong.

I dont agree that there should be unlimited free movement and a line has to be drawn somewhere. There will always be valid claims to a better life and strong argument for people to be able to seek a better life elsewhere, whether we let in 1, 1K or 1million migrants & refugees. And we don't have unlimited free space, I'm not saying we couldn't do more at the moment though.

Letting migrants & refugees in is only treating the symptom but not giving the cure and I'm surprised more people aren't pushing for the cure.

 

[spireite]

It might help if you actually read just a little about the crisis.
Most DO ask for asylum earlier. Just a small fraction make it to Calais and then the UK. More go to Germany, the Netherlands or Scandinavia because these nations accept them. The UK has legally accepted just 187 Syrians as asylum seekers; Turkey has now accepted almost 1.7 million.

The UK accepts less migrants and refugees than most other countries. German accepted four times as many as us last year, France, Sweden and Italy all took three times as many. Per head we are even further behind, with Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria accepting many more than us.

I am so sorry that we might have to build houses on greenbelt land (wow, have you got your priorities in an interesting order) to provide housing for people but this is a humanitarian disaster of our won making. You personally are benefiting from cheap oil, copper, cobalt, tin, lead, gas for which thepayments have propped up dictators and murderous regimes. I am sorry your view will be spoiled. Maybe you can move to the outskirts of Damascus, Mogadishu, Kabul or Lubumbashi where I her there is spare housing.

I don't think you sound xenophobic, just naive: you want all the creature comforts (like a nice view) while others are executed and starve to death. You've just reinvented Maslow's hierarchy. But well done on the compassion bit. I'd also hate for some lonely, scared Syrian child to lie dead on a beach where I was trying to sunbathe and do the Daily Mail crossword.

So far this year the UK has actually taken over 300,000 immigrants, and that's only the ones we know about. Our greenbelt land is legally protected for a reason. I think you're a bit naive too about the problems it would cause. Who would pay for more housing? House building companies won't. Where would their children go to school? Our schools are bursting as it is. What additional strain would it put on an already drowning NHS? I think your view is nice, but not practical. You don't fix a problem by dealling with the symptoms of the problem, you stop it at its source. Can you think of a reason why we can't do that? And who said anything about Calais? :s

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I'm surprised more people aren't pushing for the cure.

The cure is deeply unpalatable though because it involves us recognising that, as HertsWolf says, our prosperity is built on the exploitation and destabilisation of much of the rest of the world.

So far this year the UK has actually taken over 300,000 immigrants, and that's only the ones we know about. Our greenbelt land is legally protected for a reason. I think you're a bit naive too about the problems it would cause. Who would pay for more housing? House building companies won't. Where would their children go to school? Our schools are bursting as it is. What additional strain would it put on an already drowning NHS? I think your view is nice, but not practical. You don't fix a problem by dealling with the symptoms of the problem, you stop it at its source. Can you think of a reason why we can't do that?

What would your solution be?

 

[spireite]

Do you think "safe zones" in Syria (if such things were possible) have the infrastructure to support millions of displaced people? Refugee camps aren't a viable solution.

As for how to "fix the problems in Syria" no-one seems to have any idea how to do that either. I think we in the West need to consider how to dismantle our neocolonial foreign policy. That involves not arming repressive regimes; not funding terrorists through mining conflict minerals; not allowing western multinationals to exploit and destabilise workers/countries in the global south.

But that's a long-term agenda and certainly doesn't do an awful lot to help displaced civilians in Syria.

They were a viablle solution for the Sierra Leone crisis and others, why not here?

 

[blade1889]

The cure is deeply unpalatable though because it involves us recognising that, as HertsWolf says, our prosperity is built on the exploitation and destabilisation of much of the rest of the world.



What would your solution be?

We seem to recognise our unpalatable past when giving aid to India whose government are funding projects in to space. Maybe its about time we recognised its not just the former colonies we've ####ed up and that other places actually need our support more. An unpalatable truth is easier to take than the temporary masking tape over cracks.

 

[Red]

This isn't quite true either Red. They can claim free housing and a cash allowance alá job seekers (it's not a lot, but hey). They also get maternity payments and free access to the NHS. You really should check these statements you're putting across as fact.

The problem with this situation is that the argument has become polarized and it really stops any decent debate on the subject

When I said benefits I meant benefit payments like Jsa and Esa and Housing benefit, things like that.

Germany also has fascist groups burning down asylum seeker hostels and murdering migrants, with the protection of the German deep-state. There's a really grim Nazi resurgance there (some would say it never truly went away).

Not to defend Britain, obviously, which is an insular racist shit-hole, but let's not let Germany off the hook either.

A lot of countries in Europe have elements of neo Nazis. I was just pointing out that unlike here the vast majority of Germans seem more relaxed about people coming in.

 

[HertsWolf]

So far this year the UK has actually taken over 300,000 immigrants, and that's only the ones we know about. Our greenbelt land is legally protected for a reason. I think you're a bit naive too about the problems it would cause. Who would pay for more housing? House building companies won't. Where would their children go to school? Our schools are bursting as it is. What additional strain would it put on an already drowning NHS? I think your view is nice, but not practical. You don't fix a problem by dealling with the symptoms of the problem, you stop it at its source. Can you think of a reason why we can't do that? And who said anything about Calais? :s

Most of the hundreds of thousands of migrants are legally allowed to come here from different parts of the EU. Just 25,790 asked for asylum from other countries, and we accepted just 11,000. You are (possibly deliberately) confusing legal migrants with those who are asylum seekers.
Far more migrants from other parts of the EU are in Germany, the Netherlands, France, etc. and they can move about freely so they are not the ones in Calais, crossing the Mediterranean in boats or the Balkans on foot.

The current number of refugees in the UK is 40% less than it was in 2011. The hysteria is from piss-poor reporting and naive people believing what they read. This whole thing about "those we know about" is an absolute myth: if they "disappear" then they can't claim benefits (shock horror) not work (shock horror). It is believed that nearly all are documented one way or the other. Again, senseless scaremongering.

Our green belt is largely legally protected for the benefit of the extremely wealthy who can afford to live there. I actually support greenbelts. The government are perfectly happy to open up the greenbelt for executive housing - loads and loads of examples outside almost every city! There are now more than 800,000 vacant houses in the UK, which would house around 4.8 million people without building a single new home.

The source of the problem is us: we have taken the best resources and given them guns and corrupt dictators in return. Our politicians have supported this system down the years and now the chickens are coming home to roost. The poor and the destitute are walking and rowing towards your sofa and your green-belt right now.

Throughout history, every country has benefited enormously from immigration. The vast majority of that migration has been undocumented and "illegal". Every year in history, those who sit in comfort bleat about the place being full up.

The practical solution is that we deal with the problem we have created here and now. Tough on schools? Yes, of course. Tough on the NHS? Yes, but many migrants are medical staff. Tough on housing? Maybe, but could stimulate building boom. Tough on jobs? Probably not; evidence shows little impact.

The impractical solution, and one that would cost thousands more lives and far more money is invading countries to create 'safe zones'. In desert countries? Really? Where's the water going to come from? The food? The electricity? The roads? The houses? The everything?

Those who moan about the number of refugees coming here forget that Turkey already has 1.6 million and the Lebanon - with a population of 4.5 million has taken 1.2 million.

 

[HertsWolf]

They were a viablle solution for the Sierra Leone crisis and others, why not here?

Because most refugees were still in the area, and it's not a desert like most of North Africa and the Middle East?

 

[spireite]

Most of the hundreds of thousands of migrants are legally allowed to come here from different parts of the EU. Just 25,790 asked for asylum from other countries, and we accepted just 11,000. You are (possibly deliberately) confusing legal migrants with those who are asylum seekers.
Far more migrants from other parts of the EU are in Germany, the Netherlands, France, etc. and they can move about freely so they are not the ones in Calais, crossing the Mediterranean in boats or the Balkans on foot.

The current number of refugees in the UK is 40% less than it was in 2011. The hysteria is from piss-poor reporting and naive people believing what they read. This whole thing about "those we know about" is an absolute myth: if they "disappear" then they can't claim benefits (shock horror) not work (shock horror). It is believed that nearly all are documented one way or the other. Again, senseless scaremongering.

Our green belt is largely legally protected for the benefit of the extremely wealthy who can afford to live there. I actually support greenbelts. The government are perfectly happy to open up the greenbelt for executive housing - loads and loads of examples outside almost every city! There are now more than 800,000 vacant houses in the UK, which would house around 4.8 million people without building a single new home.

The source of the problem is us: we have taken the best resources and given them guns and corrupt dictators in return. Our politicians have supported this system down the years and now the chickens are coming home to roost. The poor and the destitute are walking and rowing towards your sofa and your green-belt right now.

Throughout history, every country has benefited enormously from immigration. The vast majority of that migration has been undocumented and "illegal". Every year in history, those who sit in comfort bleat about the place being full up.

The practical solution is that we deal with the problem we have created here and now. Tough on schools? Yes, of course. Tough on the NHS? Yes, but many migrants are medical staff. Tough on housing? Maybe, but could stimulate building boom. Tough on jobs? Probably not; evidence shows little impact.

The impractical solution, and one that would cost thousands more lives and far more money is invading countries to create 'safe zones'. In desert countries? Really? Where's the water going to come from? The food? The electricity? The roads? The houses? The everything?

Those who moan about the number of refugees coming here forget that Turkey already has 1.6 million and the Lebanon - with a population of 4.5 million has taken 1.2 million.

You raise good points, but in terms of creating the safe zones, that job falls to the UN Security Council and UN Forces who as usual sent some strongly worded letters but did fuck all as ISIS were mass executing civilians and Assads regime were firing chemical weapons into Damascus and Russia were backing him.

 

[Craig]

UN safe zones have worked great in the past. Bosnia and Rwanda immediately spring to mind.

 

[jacobncfc]

Aye, the likelihood of ISIS respecting any safe zone, particularly one protected by Western forces, is non-existent also.