Europe opens door to 20,000 migrants, Britain opts out

[Big Al]

Rescue them. Give them a fish supper. Sink their boats. Send them home.

 

Simple. Vote for me.

[secretagentmole]

What the....

 

Seriously kW, I had you down as a thinking man. What is it, let them die or just hope that someone else can deal with it? If we, as a wealthy, prosperous nation cannot help then who the hell can?

 

There have been some seriously socially retarded attitudes on this thread as well as some ill informed scare mongering that is nothing but grist for the daily mail mill.

 

Should we take some of these human beings? Yes. Should we do everything in our power to negate the root causes of these desperate acts and break up the criminal gangs that risk lives for profit? Hell yes. Should we blame and vilify the people that attempt the journey? No, because you would do exactly the same if you were brave enough.

a) We are not a wealthy prosperous nation anymore. We are up to our collective eyeballs in debt thanks to PFI, the EU and other leeches to the system, more is going out than coming in. Britain is no longer a super power but a super debtor!

 

b) We have to look after the society we have got, we cannot do that anymore, we do not need another wave of "I wants".

 

c) These human beings come here looking for an easy life. If they wanted to go to a place that was more secure there is plenty they can walk to in Africa. South Africa even by your own reckoning would be a more logical choice so why don't they go there?

 

d) Yes we should blame the people that attempt the journey. If they had gone to places in their own continent that were safer they would not wind up as flotsam in the Gibraltar Straights.

Edited May 17, 2015 by secretagentmole

[secretagentmole]

Thats exactly what it is and you know it.!

How can it be a question of race? There are more races coming here than are held during the course of the sodding Olympics.

It is an expression against the whole ruddy lot of them! Colour does not matter, numbers do! There is only so much you can manage and at the moment our infrastructure is at breaking point. Additional influx without funding means that there is less to spend on the people that were here to start with let alone those who have just arrived!

[Bazooka Joe]

Thats exactly what it is and you know it.!

 

No it isn't Mike & you know it !

 

Doesn't matter what race comes through the doors, they need Housing, Hospitals, Benefits, Schools, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm not against giving a helping hand, but I'm dead against letting more into the country, & it looks like "call me Dave" has the same idea, or has he done a u turn...

[Scully]

Thats exactly what it is and you know it.!

Pathetic Mike, frankly. You try and stifle debate simply by shouting racist often enough; it's a tried and tested method used by those who refuse to discuss openly any topic in which their argument defies logic.

YOUR Tory government is talking about opting out of this latest spate of 'boat people', unless I'm mistaken, and are also debating anti extremism laws to stifle free speech now they are free from the shackles of Liberalism, and the Governor of the Bank of England has also been quoted saying what Farage initially claimed some years ago. Racists Mike? By your logic, most certainly. You voted them in, not me.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Scully

[FalconFN]

Here's a question for those that say don't let any more in:

 

John Smith, a Zimbabwean farmer who's family ran the same farm for 3 generations until he, fearing his farm was going to be taken in a violent land-grab, took what money he could get hold of and abandoned his farm. He had a passport so he flew his family to the UK. Should they be allowed to stay here or should they be sent back to Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

 

Mohammed Hamid, a subsistence farmer from Sudan who's land is occupied by lawless rebel fighters, abandons his farm and flees with his family because he fears for their safety. He has no passport but he gives his life's savings to a criminal gang to smuggle him to the UK where his cousin lives and works. Should he be allows to stay or should he be sent back to war-torn Sudan?

 

I'm not saying I know the answer, there probably isn't a right answer either but I know that to stop people fleeing their homes the root causes have to be tackled, which costs money and takes effort. Either way there is a financial cost to us as the issue cannot be ignored.

[islandgun]

Here's a question for those that say don't let any more in:

 

John Smith, a Zimbabwean farmer who's family ran the same farm for 3 generations until he, fearing his farm was going to be taken in a violent land-grab, took what money he could get hold of and abandoned his farm. He had a passport so he flew his family to the UK. Should they be allowed to stay here or should they be sent back to Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

 

Mohammed Hamid, a subsistence farmer from Sudan who's land is occupied by lawless rebel fighters, abandons his farm and flees with his family because he fears for their safety. He has no passport but he gives his life's savings to a criminal gang to smuggle him to the UK where his cousin lives and works. Should he be allows to stay or should he be sent back to war-torn Sudan?

 

I'm not saying I know the answer, there probably isn't a right answer either but I know that to stop people fleeing their homes the root causes have to be tackled, which costs money and takes effort. Either way there is a financial cost to us as the issue cannot be ignored.

[The Croc]

I thought it was internationally accepted that if you were fleeing danger, you headed to the nearest safe country, and seek refuge there?

[kdubya]

Here's a question for those that say don't let any more in:

 

John Smith, a Zimbabwean farmer who's family ran the same farm for 3 generations until he, fearing his farm was going to be taken in a violent land-grab, took what money he could get hold of and abandoned his farm. He had a passport so he flew his family to the UK. Should they be allowed to stay here or should they be sent back to Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

 

Mohammed Hamid, a subsistence farmer from Sudan who's land is occupied by lawless rebel fighters, abandons his farm and flees with his family because he fears for their safety. He has no passport but he gives his life's savings to a criminal gang to smuggle him to the UK where his cousin lives and works. Should he be allows to stay or should he be sent back to war-torn Sudan?

 

I'm not saying I know the answer, there probably isn't a right answer either but I know that to stop people fleeing their homes the root causes have to be tackled, which costs money and takes effort. Either way there is a financial cost to us as the issue cannot be ignored.

john smith (the name says it all) is aligned to the UK its heritage and its values, he is a refugee of deliberate making and is being pushed by a regime hostile to the white man, we have a duty to him or does the history of Zimbabwe pass you by?

 

Mohammed, is a victim of pure lawlessness he needs sanctuary so the nearest country would do, he does not need to travel half way around the world to reach a country were safety whilst assured is secondary to the financial benefits it can also offer.

 

 

KW

Edited May 17, 2015 by kdubya

[islandgun]

interesting argument KW , how about if for arguments sake John Smith is to all intents a black African as his grandfather took up with a local lass as did his father would he stil be considered aligned to the UK ?

 

I have to agree with your and the Crocs point that refugees should seek sanctuary in the nearest safe country, regardless of how much cash they have

[panoma1]

I thought it was internationally accepted that if you were fleeing danger, you headed to the nearest safe country, and seek refuge there?

That's the point, a true foreign asylum seeker flees to the nearest place of safety, they do not cross countries and even continents to get to the country they choose! those that do are economic migrants, they come here because this country can offer them a better not safer life!

I cannot fault their aspirations but it is obvious that this country cannot accept these people without those that are already here being detrimentally affected.......and the more that come the less we will have, we cannot support the world, it is up to their country to support them and if it doesn't then the citizens of that country should change (however that is achieved?) that country so it does!

[timmytree]

Here's a question for those that say don't let any more in:

 

John Smith, a Zimbabwean farmer who's family ran the same farm for 3 generations until he, fearing his farm was going to be taken in a violent land-grab, took what money he could get hold of and abandoned his farm. He had a passport so he flew his family to the UK. Should they be allowed to stay here or should they be sent back to Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

 

Mohammed Hamid, a subsistence farmer from Sudan who's land is occupied by lawless rebel fighters, abandons his farm and flees with his family because he fears for their safety. He has no passport but he gives his life's savings to a criminal gang to smuggle him to the UK where his cousin lives and works. Should he be allows to stay or should he be sent back to war-torn Sudan?

 

I'm not saying I know the answer, there probably isn't a right answer either but I know that to stop people fleeing their homes the root causes have to be tackled, which costs money and takes effort. Either way there is a financial cost to us as the issue cannot be ignored.

Difficult.

In both cases they are people that fear for their lives because of the actions of the mob. In the case of John Smith it's because he has land and is white.

Hamid is being targeted by his own people.

Land grabs have happened before in Africa, almost without exception the farms that were run successfully by white farmers have gone to rack and ruin, to me that proves something.

What if the situation was reversed? What if ethnic groups in this country were treated in the same fashion as John Smith? 3rd generation families were hounded out?

I can only speak as I see things, the more immigrants enter this country the more the indigenous population become racist and less tolerant. There has to be a point at which we have to say "no more" and really mean it.

[timmytree]

interesting argument KW , how about if for arguments sake John Smith is to all intents a black African as his grandfather took up with a local lass as did his father would he stil be considered aligned to the UK ?

 

I have to agree with your and the Crocs point that refugees should seek sanctuary in the nearest safe country, regardless of how much cash they have

Because the attitude of the mob is that mixed race is as bad as white, besides which as a successful farmer he has something they want for nothing.

Over 3,000 white farmers murdered in South Africa in the last 20 years. Rainbow Nation my ****.

[FalconFN]

john smith (the name says it all) is aligned to the UK its heritage and its values, he is a refugee of deliberate making and is being pushed by a regime hostile to the white man, we have a duty to him or does the history of Zimbabwe pass you by?

 

Mohammed, is a victim of pure lawlessness he needs sanctuary so the nearest country would do, he does not need to travel half way around the world to reach a country were safety whilst assured is secondary to the financial benefits it can also offer.

 

 

KW

Interesting take on it, although you have made some assumptions, not least Smith's colour and cultural allegiance. Would you see it differently if Mohammed's cousin was a doctor with a large house and John was black with no uk family? There was no mention of the regime either, what if John felt an implied threat rather than a explicit threat and Mohammed was driven off his land because he was Muslim?

 

If you didn't know their names would your answer be different?

[islandgun]

Because the attitude of the mob is that mixed race is as bad as white, besides which as a successful farmer he has something they want for nothing.

Over 3,000 white farmers murdered in South Africa in the last 20 years. Rainbow Nation my ****.

My argument was just that an argument because KW usually has a measured response that is usually worth reading, racial intolerance/envy toward white Africans is as abhorrent as any other intolerance

 

as has been mentioned the odd bit is the fact that some of the asylum seekers are able to buy their way too/choose the country that offers them the most

 

Edited May 17, 2015 by islandgun

[grrclark]

There are so many simplistic arguments and statements being made here and regrettably the issue is far from simple.

 

As long as people have aspirations for a better life then we will always see an attempted movement from poorer to richer, it is basic human nature.

 

There are of course genuine refugees mixed up with those who are simply seeking a better life and it is going to be impossible to separate the two. For those who suggest they should simply move to the next place of safety as global asylum treaties recognise, consider if that they are giving up everything then why wouldn't they try to move to somewhere that they see offer them a better way of living?

 

What these people are trying to achieve is a greater quality of life, for some that means avoiding the imminent potential of brutality and death and for others it means a better lifestyle and to achieve that they are prepared to make whatever sacrifices they feel they have to. That is simple human nature and it has been that way for ever.

 

Due to the UK's colonial past there are a huge number of familial relationships that exist in every corner of the globe that extend back to Britain, the UK is also thought to be 1st or 2nd in the world of aspirational locations for emerging nations, purely because of the influence of British culture everywhere and in particular the language. It is entirely understandable why they want to come here.

 

So long as we have a difference in quality of life and aspiration, which will be forever, then every developed nation will see those from poorer backgrounds try to get in by any means possible. It is a global problem and so far we have not yet found a solution anywhere in the world.

 

We can't throw open the doors to all comers as that is unsustainable, but we can't expect it not to happen either.

 

It isn't a single issue problem either, if you look at the involvement with human aid charities in Africa as an example, through well meaning sentiment we have directly contributed to a significant growth in population through reduced infant and child mortality, through the global food chain and economic purchasing power we have directly contributed to increased demand on indigenous food stocks or we have changed agricultural policy by changing the type of crops grown, through natural resource exploitation we have further impacted on local culture and societal behaviours and the list could go on and on.

 

Just because they offend our sensitivities we cannot build a big fence and try to keep the aspirant hordes out, we need to make some very tough choices and that will involve significant amounts of repatriation of those who attempt to enter our country and return them to their point of origin, but we also need to recognise that we are very much a major contributor to the root cause and take steps to manage the fall out of that , that will be neither cheap nor easy.

 

 

The answer just now is bigger than anybody has the capability to provide and the world is moving faster than our capability to provide it. The information revolution around the globe is driving this, the better informed that people become the bigger the charge will be.

 

We cannot have globalisation to the benefit of one side only and expect people to be happy with scraps off our table or the odd burst of self serving, conscience sating charity.

[955i]

There is in all this I guess an argument that why should anyone have to justify being anywhere?

 

We are all world citizens, why do we need passports/visa's etc to be able to go anywhere?

 

The world belongs to us all, its just that some people have managed to convince us it belongs to them.

 

People get very defensive about 'their country' wherever that may be, but do they really have the right to deny anyone the option to go there?

 

OK, there are obviously places that are more desirable to people wanting change (such as the UK), but all things being equal and if the world got its **** together (as it should be) there would be no need for refugees or borders!

 

Remember war is the currency of politics and religion, nothing more.

Edited May 17, 2015 by 955i

[Fisherman Mike]

Pathetic Mike, frankly. You try and stifle debate simply by shouting racist often enough; it's a tried and tested method used by those who refuse to discuss openly any topic in which their argument defies logic.

YOUR Tory government is talking about opting out of this latest spate of 'boat people', unless I'm mistaken, and are also debating anti extremism laws to stifle free speech now they are free from the shackles of Liberalism, and the Governor of the Bank of England has also been quoted saying what Farage initially claimed some years ago. Racists Mike? By your logic, most certainly. You voted them in, not me.

More political point scoring by the kipper nimbys ? This is fundamentally about the race issue as you lot put it..don't try and gild it up any other way with clever rhetoric because I and other intelligent posters can see trough it.

Yes I did vote them in so did many millions more who don't have the same extreme political views ...You really cant get over it can you.

I hope this forum isn't going to be bombarded with 5 years of anti everything other than ukip, white and British otherwise I'm off and you bitter disillusioned lot lot can post your bile amongst yourselves and stew in your own self pity.

[Danger-Mouse]

More political point scoring by the kipper nimbys ? This is fundamentally about the race issue as you lot put it..don't try and gild it up any other way with clever rhetoric because I and other intelligent posters can see trough it.

Yes I did vote them in so did many millions more who don't have the same extreme political views ...You really cant get over it can you.

I hope this forum isn't going to be bombarded with 5 years of anti everything other than ukip, white and British otherwise I'm off and you bitter disillusioned lot lot can post your bile amongst yourselves and stew in your own self pity.

 

You can`t have it both ways Mike. Time and time again you`ve accused UKIP voters and politicians of being racist because of their immigration policy. You`ve repeatedly tarred everyone with the same brush. Now when your beloved Tory government starts to implement policies not disimilar to the ones UKIP has proposed and people bring it up and throw it back in your face, tarring you with the same brush, you don`t like it.

 

However, as the old saying goes "What`s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Now be a good fellow and roll over. I`m sure someone will be wanting to baste the other side.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Danger-Mouse

[kdubya]

 

You can`t have it both ways Mike. Time and time again you`ve accused UKIP voters and politicians of being racist because of their immigration policy. You`ve repeatedly tarred everyone with the same brush. Now when your beloved Tory government starts to implement policies not disimilar to the ones UKIP has proposed and people bring it up and throw it back in your face, tarring you with the same brush, you don`t like it.

 

However, as the old saying goes "What`s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Now be a good fellow and roll over. I`m sure someone will be wanting to baste the other side.

Andy Burnham in throwing his hat into the ring,has it seems according to the morally outraged here just exposed himself as a racist as he has stated " immigration is a priority" which I will deal with as leader, perhaps just perhaps the sensible majority are at last starting to be listened to, rather than the left wing ideological Utopia seeking few.

 

KW

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Come on FM keep us "entertained" by your masterful double standards!

[955i]

More political point scoring by the kipper nimbys ? This is fundamentally about the race issue as you lot put it..don't try and gild it up any other way with clever rhetoric because I and other intelligent posters can see trough it.

Yes I did vote them in so did many millions more who don't have the same extreme political views ...You really cant get over it can you.

I hope this forum isn't going to be bombarded with 5 years of anti everything other than ukip, white and British otherwise I'm off and you bitter disillusioned lot lot can post your bile amongst yourselves and stew in your own self pity.

Mike, I hate to say it but your one horse (realise the horse has gone from your avatar) rhetoric is just making you come across as an *** at the moment.

 

It has happened to me on here before and I think maybe, like me, now would be a good time to take 5 and think about your state of mind.

[timmytree]

More political point scoring by the kipper nimbys ? This is fundamentally about the race issue as you lot put it..don't try and gild it up any other way with clever rhetoric because I and other intelligent posters can see trough it.

Yes I did vote them in so did many millions more who don't have the same extreme political views ...You really cant get over it can you.

I hope this forum isn't going to be bombarded with 5 years of anti everything other than ukip, white and British otherwise I'm off and you bitter disillusioned lot lot can post your bile amongst yourselves and stew in your own self pity.

Yep, we can manage that. It'll be worth it. Bye bye!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Missing you already!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not

[Scully]

More political point scoring by the kipper nimbys ? You simply refuse to accept it don't you? Unbelievable. You can't have it both ways Mike. You have constantly played the race card in all your rhetoric concerning those who support UKIP and the party itself in a deliberate attempt to shut them up and belittle them, and now your own party is considering policy along very similar lines you can't come to terms with it.

This is fundamentally about the race issue as you lot put it..You can repeat this all day long if it makes you feel any better; you don't know me at all, but the people who do would find this suggestion hilarious. don't try and gild it up any other way with clever rhetoric because I and other intelligent posters can see trough it.You can gild it anyway you like Mike, but you're going to have to face the fact that the party you voted into party, by your logic, is as racist as you claim UKIP is. Who'd have thought eh; the establishment which exploited the world and its indigenous populace in order to create one of the biggest empires since the Romans turns out to be racist. You couldn't make it up.

Yes I did vote them in so did many millions more who don't have the same extreme political views ...You really cant get over it can you. Now I'm an 'extremist'? Get over what exactly? That the party you voted into power is instigating UKIP policies?

I hope this forum isn't going to be bombarded with 5 years of anti everything other than ukip, white and British otherwise I'm off. Bye then............again. There's always an upside. My arm is getting tired with this constant waving.

If someone expresses an opinion about politics or policy which I don't agree with then I'm as entitled as you are to express mine, and you wouldn't be any different. and you bitter disillusioned lot lot can post your bile amongst yourselves and stew in your own self pity. ​I don't feel in the slightest bitter or disillusioned Mike, and it would appear one or two other parties have removed their rose tinted spectacles and are in fact waking up to smell the actual roses.