natjack Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Pub discussion ... That the illegal migrants trying to get into Europe, are diverted to EE countries within the EU They have more empty land, as many of the citizens have moved into western europe previously, thus making space for newcomers. The probably wouldn't get looked after, but they wouldn't be anywhere near a war, so wouldn't be fearing for their lives, and they could probably live off the land in the more remote parts. Would that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I disagree (although, to be fair, for it to be entirely relevant to the discussion, the analysis would have to be EU-wide). The (ONS-established) fact that we 'haves' are richer now than in 2004 despite unprecedented levels of immigration of 'have nots' in the same period at least shows that immigration has not prevented us 'haves' from 'getting more'. That goes to the heart of your earlier argument, that the 'haves' sharing their lot with the 'have nots' would indisputably make them poorer: that's not been the case in the UK, so says the ONS. And again with the 'indisputably/undoubtedly' Now who's playing semantics! OK I will rephrase... not screening out negative contributing immigrants reduces the net collective contribution and as such we are poorer than we would have been had we imposed selective immigration controls to weed out the negative contributors. Negative immigrant contributors draw down on the country's collective wealth and there is no disputing that this sharing has made us poorer than had we not shared. That is surely indisputable! I suppose it would be good to know that, i.e. the extent to which restricted immigration could have made us richer than unrestricted immigration (need I remind you in passing that 'unrestricted' is EU-only, it's been pretty restricted for the rest of the world since shortly before 2010, and getting still more restricted for non-EU types from May 1st). But it's your contention to prove, so off you go find some evidence I think I'll pass on your homework assignment! All I will say is that even the left-wing academics can't find a way to spin it so that non-EU immigrants make a positive financial contribution, which is all we need to know to know a change in policy is needed. I don't know why you fixate about the 'xenophobic' adjective, at least so far as I'm concerned: when considering what to do the migrants coming across the Med, I think I've pretty much nailed my colours to the mast a long time back in this thread, i.e. intervene and "sort" their country, to remove the main and core factors driving emigration to rampant levels. That'll be the engineer type in me looking to actually fix the problem, rather than the manager type looking to just shift the problem That can be done in many different ways, some more-cost effective than others, possibly (probably) even cheaper than just putting up figurative walls around fortress Europe for however long the problem endures (for it will endure, until and unless these 'main and core factors' are sorted indeed). I certainly haven't posted or even suggested that the UK or the EU should take however many come across for however long they continue to come. Preventing those migrants from settling in Europe isn't shifting a problem but preventing a shifting/expansion of the problem. I complete agree that the migrant problem will not be resolved until the root causes are addressed but those root causes aren't to be found within EU jurisdiction and are therefore not ours to solve... even if the engineer in you wants to! Our interventions over the last decade or so have been spectacular failures and it is insane to keep repeating the strategy. We need to either leave them to it (including sending those trying to leave back) or we need to take over and take the spoils to compensate ourselves for the grief and effort that will entail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil woman Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I was very concerned at the news report stating that no women or children survived, yet plenty of men did. Was the "women and children first" rule non existent? It would pretty much depend on the society. I think that in their society it is all non belivers first, followed by women and children. That isn't into the lifeboats. That is first over the side into the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Why are the media calling them immigrants? Illegal immigrants, maybe, but not immigrants in any true sense of the word's meaning. I agree with loraward, they should be rescued and returned. Anyone found on the boat that seems to be in charge of it, should be handed over to the authorities on the other side. Or, if possible, arrested and charged and imprisoned for long enough to discourage them from doing it again. Letting these 'immigrants' stay is just encouraging others to risk their lives and their money on a fool's journey. Sympathise with them, but Europe can't take everyone in. Well said. Why not instead of sending out so many rescue boats send a couple of gunships out there and sink these boats before they even get passengers. These people need to know that even if they sucessfully make their intended journeys that they will be towed back before they can disembark. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Most people, when considering what to do with the migrants coming across the Med, simply consider whether they would add or detract from our lot. The obvious answer is they would detract and therefore most people don't want them here. . Exactly right. Those who would have us take in the migrants regardless can't argue with the logic of that and therefore resort to the xenophobia and racism ruse. They also try and tug on the heartstrings by omitting uncomfortable facts. Such as mentioned upthread, these people are illegal immigrants, not "migrants". Most of their countries of origin have not been bombed or invaded by us or anyone else. Most of these countries of origin have undergone a population explosion over the last few decades which is down to them and them alone. As these populations continue to skyrocket the number of illegal immigrants will only increase - so the "rescue mission" in the Med is going to turn into an full time exercise in importing illegals, thereby breaking the EU's own immigration laws. Most uncomfortable fact of all - most of the rich left wingers who cry racism and xenophobia will not be affected by another mass influx of immigrants. The people at the bottom of the heap, the people on low wages, zero hours contracts, the people who can't get their kids into local schools or get a doctor's appointment, THEY are the ones who will get the mucky end of the stick - again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Gadaffi should have been left alone, he had the borders controlled to a certain extent. Britain should accept some of these people as well seeing as we were also involved in Libya via NATO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretty_big Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Whether we are richer now than in 2004 is irrelevant. All we need to know is that screening immigrants would undoubtedly have made us richer than we now are. In essence we are behaving just like the migrants trying to come here in that we are simply trying to survive and to survive in as much comfort as possible. The same quintessential human nature drives them to try and come here and those already here to try and stop them. Most people, when considering what to do with the migrants coming across the Med, simply consider whether they would add or detract from our lot. The obvious answer is they would detract and therefore most people don't want them here. Those who would have us take in the migrants regardless can't argue with the logic of that and therefore resort to the xenophobia and racism ruse. The thinking is that if they label the decision xenophobic then people will reverse their decision to prove they are not! I'm afraid the tactic is a little old and worn now and most people see straight through it. Great post, one of the best I've read on here in a while ---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 21:47 ---------- Gadaffi should have been left alone, he had the borders controlled to a certain extent. Britain should accept some of these people as well seeing as we were also involved in Libya via NATO.... We should accept absolutely none of them... The use of the word accept shouldn't be accepted ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 We should accept absolutely none of them... Why not?...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretty_big Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Why not?...... The question is why should we, not why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The question is why should we, not why not. You're the one saying we shouldn't, so why not? Stop trying to avoid the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now