SevenRivers Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Have you not considered they'd much rather be living in peace and harmony in their homeland? Why would anyone want to leave the country where their jobs are, their family and memories are to come to a country that's extremely hostile to their existence? Housing benefit and a few food vouchers wouldn't really swing it for me to be honest. Whatever the whys and wherefors behind their claim for asylum in the UK, would you seriously want to see totally innocent people and their children 'starve to death'?-sound very much like a Daily Mail reader to me ol boy Are you seriously suggesting we allow people into the country based on the threat of suicide? Does that really sound like the sort of people we want in the UK, people who threaten to kill themselves to get what they want? That's what suicide bombers do too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Are you seriously suggesting we allow people into the country based on the threat of suicide? Does that really sound like the sort of people we want in the UK, people who threaten to kill themselves to get what they want? That's what suicide bombers do too. Very clever, I seeded wot yoo did dere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Are you seriously suggesting we allow people into the country based on the threat of suicide? Does that really sound like the sort of people we want in the UK, people who threaten to kill themselves to get what they want? That's what suicide bombers do too. I wasn't suggesting anything regarding the sincerity of their claim or the actions they take to enhance it. What concerned me was someone stating they'd rather another human being starve to death rather than hear what the extent of their claim is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 What I've learned on here is that when you debate, or attempt to debate with those devoid of empathy, the debate generally gets bogged down. "send them back" is the sum total of any reasoning. You can't reason with that if empathy is lacking. It's usually the result of a very closed mind or trauma. Lack of empathy is also a pointer towards lack of humour. After the UK then where? How many safe countries or states have they passed through to get to the UK? Who funded their multi thousand mile trip? Why didn't they stay in any of the much nearer safe countries? Jordan is a neighbour and Muslim. Turkey is a neighbour and Muslim so why didn't they go there? Doesn't anyone on here think that it is strange that these people choose to pass through so many safe countries to get to the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I wasn't suggesting anything regarding the sincerity of their claim or the actions they take to enhance it. What concerned me was someone stating they'd rather another human being starve to death rather than hear what the extent of their claim is. If they starve themselves, who can be to blame other than themselves. From your previous post: would you seriously want to see totally innocent people and their children 'starve to death'? Somebody was jailed for 18 years this week for starving their child to death. If you're suggesting that these people are serious refugees, how is starving their children (as you'e suggesting) proving anything, other than they're child abusers? You might want to bring in a bunch of suicide threatening child abusing blackmailers, I'd like to keep them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Quote: Originally Posted by ccit View Post There is an expectation that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Did you know the overwhelming majority of them do? But obviously those receiving countries are limited in resources just like the rest of us and since they tend to be the poorest countries their resources will be stretched far more than those of developed countries. So France, Germany, Austria Italy etc are the poor underdeveloped countries are they. What about Holland, Denmark Belgium or Switzerland? Are they all poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 After the UK then where? How many safe countries or states have they passed through to get to the UK? Those 'safe' countries might not have been in a position to grant them asylum. Who funded their multi thousand mile trip? You don't get this refugee thing do you? Just because they're fleeing an evil regime doesn't necessarily mean they're impoverished. I know of several extremely wealthy Iranians who sought asylum in the UK after/during the revolution in the late 70's. Why didn't they stay in any of the much nearer safe countries? See my post above. Most do, over 1 million Syrians have been given refuge in neighbouring countries, but presumably you can imagine the effect that has on those countries infrastructure-social & economic? They might quite simply not be in a position to offer assistance. Conversely only 25,000 so far have sought asylum further afield..slight difference eh? Jordan is a neighbour and Muslim. Turkey is a neighbour and Muslim so why didn't they go there? How do you know they didn't? Doesn't anyone on here think that it is strange that these people choose to pass through so many safe countries to get to the UK? Not really, for the reasons stated above. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:41 ---------- So France, Germany, Austria Italy etc are the poor underdeveloped countries are they. What about Holland, Denmark Belgium or Switzerland? Are they all poor? Refugees don't generally walk from their country of persecution. I guess they go to the countries which will offer them and their families the best outcome, despite what you think there are quite a few in front of the UK in terms of preferred destination. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:44 ---------- If they starve themselves, who can be to blame other than themselves. Indeed, however unlike you I wouldn't rejoice at that outcome. From your previous post: Somebody was jailed for 18 years this week for starving their child to death. If you're suggesting that these people are serious refugees, how is starving their children (as you'e suggesting) proving anything, other than they're child abusers? You might want to bring in a bunch of suicide threatening child abusing blackmailers, I'd like to keep them out. You forgot to include the part where I said 'without the whys and wherefors'. As I said I made no reference to my preferred outcome to any claim for asylum they might make in the UK. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:51 ---------- After the UK then where? How many safe countries or states have they passed through to get to the UK? Why didn't they stay in any of the much nearer safe countries? Jordan is a neighbour and Muslim. Turkey is a neighbour and Muslim so why didn't they go there? Doesn't anyone on here think that it is strange that these people choose to pass through so many safe countries to get to the UK? Whenever this issue comes up people become obsessed by this 'nearest country thing'-imagine if the SNP came to power in Scotland and started persecuting anyone with English blood. Presumably you'd be perfectly happy then if a couple of million Sassenachs came fleeing over Hadrian's Wall to cosy up in your front room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I guess they go to the countries which will offer them and their families the best outcome. And there you've said it, in reality economic migrants that this country cannot afford! Your points in general are mostly Hypothetical. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 16:22 ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by Peer Gynt View Post So France, Germany, Austria Italy etc are the poor underdeveloped countries are they. What about Holland, Denmark Belgium or Switzerland? Are they all poor? Refugees don't generally walk from their country of persecution. So where did these so called refugees get their migration money from, I can't afford to go on a trip around the Middle east and Europe but it seems they can afford to take their whole families on the 'Grand Tour'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Those 'safe' countries might not have been in a position to grant them asylum. You don't get this refugee thing do you? Just because they're fleeing an evil regime doesn't necessarily mean they're impoverished. I know of several extremely wealthy Iranians who sought asylum in the UK after/during the revolution in the late 70's. See my post above. Most do, over 1 million Syrians have been given refuge in neighbouring countries, but presumably you can imagine the effect that has on those countries infrastructure-social & economic? They might quite simply not be in a position to offer assistance. Conversely only 25,000 so far have sought asylum further afield..slight difference eh? How do you know they didn't? Not really, for the reasons stated above. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:41 ---------- Refugees don't generally walk from their country of persecution. I guess they go to the countries which will offer them and their families the best outcome, despite what you think there are quite a few in front of the UK in terms of preferred destination. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:44 ---------- Indeed, however unlike you I wouldn't rejoice at that outcome. You forgot to include the part where I said 'without the whys and wherefors'. As I said I made no reference to my preferred outcome to any claim for asylum they might make in the UK. ---------- Post added 05-10-2013 at 15:51 ---------- Whenever this issue comes up people become obsessed by this 'nearest country thing'-imagine if the SNP came to power in Scotland and started persecuting anyone with English blood. Presumably you'd be perfectly happy then if a couple of million Sassenachs came fleeing over Hadrian's Wall to cosy up in your front room? They'd be crushed in the rush by the twice as many Scots who live here returning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 They'd be crushed in the rush by the twice as many Scots who live here returning. Brill, love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.