sakho Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I.... I bet all the naysayers on here Would be the first with their hands out If they had their house bombed, their families attacked Its more likley that the naysayers would be the first to fight to protect their homes and family, whilst the supporters of this mass exodus from African and Asia would be running and hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I don't understand why the Germans are making a fuss about other countries in the EU not taking their fair share of migrants. After all, we are so often told that migrants make a positive financial contribution, they don't put a strain on housing and schools, without them health services would collapse and the religious and cultural diversity they bring enriches society. Ah, the old: Confuse EU migrants with asylum seekers trick, well done Zamo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakho Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Ah, the old: Confuse EU migrants with asylum seekers trick, well done Zamo! They are migrants, a refugee is looking to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster, a migrant is looking for better living conditions, and everyone they interview is already safe from war, persecution and natural disaster and looking for better living conditions in rich countries, this makes them economic migrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 They are migrants, a refugee is looking to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster, a migrant is looking for better living conditions, and everyone they interview is already safe from war, persecution and natural disaster and looking for better living conditions in rich countries, this makes them economic migrants. Even if that were true, what would you do in the same circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Ah, the old: Confuse EU migrants with asylum seekers trick, well done Zamo! What is the difference between a poor economic migrant and a poor asylum seeker in terms of financial contribution, impact on schools, housing and health services and enriching society through cultural diversity? Are you saying that the contribution of economic migrants from North Africa are going to be markedly different to asylum seekers from North Africa? Please explain how. No, the fact is that people like you constantly try to convince us that immigrants make a positive financial and social contribution and aren't putting a strain on housing, schools or the NHS. All I am doing is throwing your own argument back at you... if that is the case then why do we have to take our 'fair share' of asylum seekers? Why can't we just let the more enlightened Germans keep all that positivity for themselves? Surely we are just being generous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Its more likley that the naysayers would be the first to fight to protect their homes and family, whilst the supporters of this mass exodus from African and Asia would be running and hiding. Really? Based on what exactly? D'you not consider the bravery and fortitude of, for example, people who've fled the civil war in Syria and mad long and perilous journeys under very difficult conditions as something to be admired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakho Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Even if that were true, what would you do in the same circumstances? It is true and if a civil war broke out in the UK I would pick a side and fight, I wouldn't run away leaving the women and children behind. The overwhelming majority of Asia's and African's trying to get to Europe are young men, not the kind of people you would expect to see running from a fight, the women and children they left behind are surely in even more danger than they were in. I would expect to see mostly women, children and old people looking for safety whilst the men fought it out or reconciled their differences. ---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 10:52 ---------- Really? Based on what exactly? D'you not consider the bravery and fortitude of, for example, people who've fled the civil war in Syria and mad long and perilous journeys under very difficult conditions as something to be admired? Running away isn't bravery, why are the majority of those looking for safety mostly young men, where are the women, children and elderly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Chicken would be a better description.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) What is the difference between a poor economic migrant and a poor asylum seeker in terms of financial contribution, impact on schools, housing and health services and enriching society through cultural diversity? Are you saying that the contribution of economic migrants from North Africa are going to be markedly different to asylum seekers from North Africa? Please explain how. No, the fact is that people like you constantly try to convince us that immigrants make a positive financial and social contribution and aren't putting a strain on housing, schools or the NHS. All I am doing is throwing your own argument back at you... if that is the case then why do we have to take our 'fair share' of asylum seekers? Why can't we just let the more enlightened Germans keep all that positivity for themselves? Surely we are just being generous? Migrants proven to make a positive financial contribution to the UK (variously estimated at between £5bn and £20bn) are EU migrants, a fact with which you are very well acquainted through earlier debate on here. Your earlier post #226 failed entirely to make this distinction (and I wouldn't put 'deliberately' past you), and tzijlstra took you up about it. Is that an apology I hear? Not likely Edited August 26, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Migrants proven to make a positive financial contribution to the UK (variously estimated at between £5bn and £20bn) are EU migrants, a fact with which you are very well acquainted through earlier debate on here. Your earlier post #226 failed entirely to make this distinction (and I wouldn't put 'deliberately' past you), and tzijlstra took you up about it. Is that an apology I hear? Not likely Thank you for confirming that it doesn't matter whether we are talking about economic migrants or asylum seekers from North Africa/Middle East... they will collectively drain us financially, put added strain on housing, schools and the NHS and this can only lead to social problems (especially when so many are members of a religion plagued by extremism). Yes, you are right, I don't make a distinction between EU migrants, non-EU migrants and asylum seekers. Entry to this country should be conditional on the applicant being able to make a positive financial and social contribution and even then numbers may need to be capped so we can keep pace in terms of demand placed on housing, school places and the NHS. Edited August 26, 2015 by Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts