BarryRiley Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 How wealthy are they?..........give us some examples,profiles,a run down of the backgrounds of these people,what they have to make up that wealth,bank balance,property,business? Wealthy enough to afford the thousands of Euros required to be able to make the trip to Northern Europe. Do you really think poor, hungry displaced Syrians are able to par 3k to a people smuggler to get them across to Greece and survive a journey of thousands of miles using public transport onwards to Germany? If so, please explain how. What is the breakdown of refugees trying to get to Europe. By age and gender. I don't have this data because it is not being collected. It cant' be collected as the migrants are refusing registration and forcing their way through borders. I'm not going to pretend to know or attribute different statistics to this like you did. However, I have closely watched hundreds of hours of BBC propaganda news footage since the beginning of the crisis, where the agenda was clearly to show children and mothers, and even then they couldn't hide that the large majority of these people seemed to be men in their 20s and 30s. Go and find me a photograph of a large group of migrants making the way through Europe who have a balanced proportion of women and children. There is plenty of photographic and video evidence that these migrants are mostly young men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) OMG! adrea, you are soo right! That's only part of a sentence, the remainder of the sentence explains the similarity. ---------- Post added 08-09-2015 at 08:58 ---------- Did you get those numbers off the back of a fag packet or just invent them? No it was the figure that was reported and complied by Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration headed by Professor Christian Dustmann at University College, London. As for the impact on the budget, the most recent study by CReAM, attached to UCL found that all immigrants between 1995 and 2011 had cost the UK Exchequer between £114 and £160 billion- or, roughly, £20 million a day. Edited September 8, 2015 by adrea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 The surprising thing is that so many Syrians managed to get such a good education in a country that some claim was barbaric towards its population. A friend of mine..lovely woman, had it all. Husband built a house for themselves, went on lavish holidays, top range motors...all the trimmings. Sadly after getting out and filing for a divorce it was found he used to beat her relentlessly. The picture is never what it seems until you scrape away the new paint. Not sure why you're so surprised..then again and on reflection, yes I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 c Wealthy enough to afford the thousands of Euros required to be able to make the trip to Northern Europe. Do you really think poor, hungry displaced Syrians are able to par 3k to a people smuggler to get them across to Greece and survive a journey of thousands of miles using public transport onwards to Germany? If so, please explain how How can they be economic migrants if they are already wealthy?........wealthy people don't spend all their wealth on traffickers or leave all their wealth behind to travel thousands of miles on foot,face refugee camps and food shortages,camping out overnight in places with no facilities..........are you saying that these already wealthy people are so greedy to get more money that they are willing to leave their wealthy lives behind and put themselves through what they are doing,an in some cases die in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 c How can they be economic migrants if they are already wealthy?........wealthy people don't spend all their wealth on traffickers or leave all their wealth behind to travel thousands of miles on foot,face refugee camps and food shortages,camping out overnight in places with no facilities..........are you saying that these already wealthy people are so greedy to get more money that they are willing to leave their wealthy lives behind and put themselves through what they are doing,an in some cases die in the process? Yes..if it fits a narrow myopic thought process, and they're foreign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 c How can they be economic migrants if they are already wealthy?........wealthy people don't spend all their wealth on traffickers or leave all their wealth behind to travel thousands of miles on foot,face refugee camps and food shortages,camping out overnight in places with no facilities..........are you saying that these already wealthy people are so greedy to get more money that they are willing to leave their wealthy lives behind and out themselves through what they are doing,an in some cases die in the process? It depends on what you mean by wealthy. They are not millionaires retiring on huge pensions, but they are wealthy enough to make the trips and wealthier than the average Syrian. However, being wealthier than the average person doesn't guarantee you the ultimate life in the countries that they come from, or are currently residing in when they make the trips. They see the eventual benefits of travelling to a first world country as outweighing the potential dangers, no matter how flawed that logic is. You would imagine that someone would only take these perilous trips if their lives were absolutely in danger right? Well it clearly doesn't work like this as Nigerians have died making boat trips to Italy. The pictures of the Nigerians in the camps show them well-clothed and with MP3 players. Also, Nigeria isn't at war. The simple fact is that none of these people who are traveling to Germany or Sweden are doing it because their lives are in danger. Their lives haven't been in danger for the last 3000 miles. They are doing it because they have heard that the economic prospects of life in these countries are worth the risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Like I said above the reality in the UK is we have set our own agenda, and that does not involve mass immigration on the scale Germany is contemplating. Your fears are really for other EU countries. In fact if you want us to leave the EU my bet is that has just moved a big step closer to happening. 636,000 came to the UK last year and 552,000 the year before... and that's just the legal stuff we can count. We already have mass immigration and now we are talking of adding to it instead of reducing it to the 'tens of thousands' as promised. I do not think that the only potential consequence is the UK leaving the EU. It is inevitable that ignoring the wishes of the majority (yet again) is going to lead to more resentment and frustration and this can only lead to a hardening of attitudes. Where do the attitudes of those already on the fringes ( in terms of anger) go? How do we stop more attacks (it was reported yesterday that 'Islamophobic' attacks in London have increased 70%), how do we stop reprisals and tit-for-tat attacks seeing more people dragged into disorder and things spiralling out of control? 15,000 people is all it took to cause chaos on our streets back in 2011. Do we have 15,000 people angry enough (on both sides) to resort to violence? I don't know for sure but I think it is likely. What I do know is that the decision to take in more migrants can only move us closer to a tipping point where frustration spills over into violence and if that happens it will be difficult to stop it and is more likely to spiral out of control. Where is the strategy to manage this real risk? How are the majority to be appeased? How are the most extreme to be contained? How do we stop good intentions leading to a potentially disastrous outcome? No doubt some people do not assess it as being as much of a risk as I do but what can't be disputed is that it is none-the-less a risk. My question is how is the risk to be managed and mitigated? Where is the long-term strategic thinking to accompany the emotional reaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 A friend of mine..lovely woman, had it all. Husband built a house for themselves, went on lavish holidays, top range motors...all the trimmings. Sadly after getting out and filing for a divorce it was found he used to beat her relentlessly. The picture is never what it seems until you scrape away the new paint. Not sure why you're so surprised..then again and on reflection, yes I do. Was he found guilty? not that it as anything whatsoever to do with this topic of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 It depends on what you mean by wealthy. They are not millionaires retiring on huge pensions, but they are wealthy enough to make the trips and wealthier than the average Syrian. However, being wealthier than the average person doesn't guarantee you the ultimate life in the countries that they come from, or are currently residing in when they make the trips. They see the eventual benefits of travelling to a first world country as outweighing the potential dangers, no matter how flawed that logic is. You would imagine that someone would only take these perilous trips if their lives were absolutely in danger right? Well it clearly doesn't work like this as Nigerians have died making boat trips to Italy. The pictures of the Nigerians in the camps show them well-clothed and with MP3 players. Also, Nigeria isn't at war. The simple fact is that none of these people who are traveling to Germany or Sweden are doing it because their lives are in danger. Their lives haven't been in danger for the last 3000 miles. They are doing it because they have heard that the economic prospects of life in these countries are worth the risks. OK,My mistake,it seems I have got this Syrian war thingy all wrong.........nobody died,nobody is in danger of dying,there are thousands of wealthy people all leaving their wealthy and comfortable houses and lavish lifestyles behind in order to possibly die in the sea in order to get hand outs in the EU,which they urgently need because they are so wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 636,000 came to the UK last year and 552,000 the year before... and that's just the legal stuff we can count. We already have mass immigration and now we are talking of adding to it instead of reducing it to the 'tens of thousands' as promised. I do not think that the only potential consequence is the UK leaving the EU. It is inevitable that ignoring the wishes of the majority (yet again) is going to lead to more resentment and frustration and this can only lead to a hardening of attitudes. Where do the attitudes of those already on the fringes ( in terms of anger) go? How do we stop more attacks (it was reported yesterday that 'Islamophobic' attacks in London have increased 70%), how do we stop reprisals and tit-for-tat attacks seeing more people dragged into disorder and things spiralling out of control? 15,000 people is all it took to cause chaos on our streets back in 2011. Do we have 15,000 people angry enough (on both sides) to resort to violence? I don't know for sure but I think it is likely. What I do know is that the decision to take in more migrants can only move us closer to a tipping point where frustration spills over into violence and if that happens it will be difficult to stop it and is more likely to spiral out of control. Where is the strategy to manage this real risk? How are the majority to be appeased? How are the most extreme to be contained? How do we stop good intentions leading to a potentially disastrous outcome? No doubt some people do not assess it as being as much of a risk as I do but what can't be disputed is that it is none-the-less a risk. My question is how is the risk to be managed and mitigated? Where is the long-term strategic thinking to accompany the emotional reaction? Hopefully they will think long and hard about were to house them, and house them in areas that want high levels of immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts