Immigrants dying in the Mediterranean

[JFKvsNixon]

If taking the refugees isn't an answer to the problem, helps to condemn other people to the miserable fate caused by the problem and causes us problems by doing it, then why do it?

 

 

 

The cultural and religious problems responsible for the dysfunction and fighting are not ours to solve and we can't solve them even if we want to.

 

I am pretty certain that those people sitting in boats in the Med would refute that their culture and religion are root causes of the problems they are fleeing. We need to leave them to discover the truth for themselves because until they do nothing will change over there and they will only bring their problems with them if they are allowed to come here.

 

I accept that there are a lot economic migrants trying to make a better life for themselves. However, just for the sake of argument lets talk about the genuine refugees that are fleeing from persecution. Do you really need to ask, why do we (as in the richer countries) take them in?

 

I'll also ask this question again. Do you really believe that we (the richer countries) can pull up the draw bridge and wash our hand on what goes on in the rest of the world without any further consequences?

 

I'd argue that even if you're not worried about the fate of these refugees and the people left behind, it's still in our (the rich countries) interest to sort out this mess.

[Zamo]

I accept that there are a lot economic migrants trying to make a better life for themselves. However, just for the sake of argument lets talk about the genuine refugees that are fleeing from persecution. Do you really need to ask, why do we (as in the richer countries) take them in?

 

I'll also ask this question again. Do you really believe that we (the richer countries) can pull up the draw bridge and wash our hand on what goes on in the rest of the world without any further consequences?

 

I'd argue that even if you're not worried about the fate of these refugees and the people left behind, it's still in our (the rich countries) interest to sort out this mess.

 

You keep going back to it being the responsibility of rich nations to sort the mess but don't tell us how?

 

You keep saying we have a duty to save those people but then dodge the point that taking people out of the country (who want change) will stifle change because you remove opposition. This simple condemns others to the fate that we save the refugees from. If your short-term solution results in more long-term suffering and death then not doing it is the right decision even if it makes us uncomfortable.

 

What exactly is the strategy to sort the mess? How will it differ from our other interventions that have made things worse over there and here?

[loraward]

How old do you want to be before you draw your pension, 27?

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 15:08 ----------

 

 

On average we are better off by about 7%.

 

The problem with average is that most could be worse off whilst a few are substantially better off.

 

Increasing the nations wealth doesn't mean the wealth of the majority as increased, and when the increase in wealth is tied into an asset that you can't sell its no good to anyone.

[geared]

You keep going back to it being the responsibility of rich nations to sort the mess but don't tell us how?

 

When it comes to meddling in other countries affairs, the English and the Spanish are about as bad as it gets.

[loraward]

 

 

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'

 

 

The wealthiest haves have seen their wealth increase, but the poorest haves have seen their wealth decrease because there are more people wanting a share.

[Legine Garaf]

I accept that there are a lot economic migrants trying to make a better life for themselves. However, just for the sake of argument lets talk about the genuine refugees that are fleeing from persecution. Do you really need to ask, why do we (as in the richer countries) take them in?

 

I'll also ask this question again. Do you really believe that we (the richer countries) can pull up the draw bridge and wash our hand on what goes on in the rest of the world without any further consequences?

 

I'd argue that even if you're not worried about the fate of these refugees and the people left behind, it's still in our (the rich countries) interest to sort out this mess.

 

so to be seen to do the right thing, we must take responsibility to house clothe and feed all migrants/refugees? no matter what eh? we as richer countries need to address the problem over there at the root, invest in the country both financially and militarily with a UN force but with teeth, uncomfortable as it may be, when they had military leaders running the north african countries it sort of worked?

[truman]

so to be seen to do the right thing, we must take responsibility to house clothe and feed all migrants/refugees? no matter what eh? we as richer countries need to address the problem over there at the root, invest in the country both financially and militarily with a UN force but with teeth, uncomfortable as it may be, when they had military leaders running the north african countries it sort of worked?

 

You may wish to ask some of the residents of those countries and see if they all agree with you..I'm not sure they will

[loraward]

I'm simply saying that we in the UK live on around 7% (at most) of that 1/1500th global land area. Not exactly piled one on top of the other, or bursting at the seams, are we?

 

Another incorrect figure, we live on roughly 80% of UK land and the other 20% isn't suitable for habitation or farming, but is used for recreation. We also use land in other parts of the world to produce food that we are unable to produce.

 

Or did you think that food is produced in the supermarkets that sell it?

[L00b]

so to be seen to do the right thing, we must take responsibility to house clothe and feed all migrants/refugees? no matter what eh? we as richer countries need to address the problem over there at the root, invest in the country both financially and militarily with a UN force but with teeth, uncomfortable as it may be, when they had military leaders running the north african countries it sort of worked?

Got it in one, Legine.

 

But you left out the dictator bit, and we'd need to set one up as well (and a non-proselyte, preferably secular and benevolent one at that) rather than a 'democratically-elected' government.

 

The problem with 'democratic' is that not all will be pleased by the election outcome. Now, every one will say 'so what? same problem here'...however that is IMHO precisely what has proven to be the fundamental and enduring problem everywhere it's been tried in Afghanistan and the Middle East: the fundy beardies don't accept the democratic choice and kick off, or the democratic choice eventually turns out to be fundy beardies, with the same consequences on the local population. Just ask the Iranians.

 

No such issue with a dictator. Other issues, absolutely. But less of a chaotic power vacuum in which a large and unbridled terrorist ecosystem can breed and endure openly.

 

A very uncomfortable truth, as you say...but a case of needs must, again IMHO.

[Harrystottle]

What about the point that rich countries like the UK taking in these refugees actually helps to consolidate the root cause problems whilst lumbering ourselves with an ongoing financial burden and future social problems?

 

There is no case for anyone taking in these refugees and therefore a debate about how to calculate our share of zero is a waste of time.

 

Fully agree. Their own countries are the root of their problems. Us taking their economic migrant overflow is no solution at all. Because the continuing rise in the populations of these countries means that the flow of economic migrants will just not stop.