natjack Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Seems no point in contributing opinions to a thread like this, if your honest opinion of what's going on is just going to be deleted. What did I say that was so wrong? Enlighten me, or I just might accidentally type the truth again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 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. Wow, you managed read all that in my post #239? Tell the voices I said 'Hi!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 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. Hang on, before you were accusing them of being ecomonic migrants rather than refugees. So if you saw a country were you could get a better standard of living, what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Hang on, before you were accusing them of being ecomonic migrants rather than refugees. So if you saw a country were you could get a better standard of living, what would you do? But if letting everyone that wants to get into a country for a better standard of living for themselves, is going to have the inevitable effect of lowering the standard of living for the people already there, does that country not have the right to refuse to let them in? That's really the question, and why it's so vital to ascertain what their status actually is, refugee, asylum seeker or economic migrant? We aren't allowed to refuse proven asylum seekers, we can reject the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Wow, you managed read all that in my post #239? Tell the voices I said 'Hi!' What bit have I misread/interpreted? You said it has been proven that EU migrants make a positive contribution - something I'd dispute but isn't really relevant - which we can surely read as you saying non-EU migrants don't? Clear things up for us... do you think mass migration from North Africa and the Middle East will make us richer or poorer from either a financial and social perspective? Do you think Germany and other countries are asking us to take our fair share because they want us to share the financial and social riches those migrants/asylum seekers bring or because they want to spread the pain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 What bit have I misread/interpreted?All of it? You said it has been proven that EU migrants make a positive contributionCorrect. That is all I said, to draw attention to your earlier mendacious post. - something I'd dispute but isn't really relevant - Ah, the strawman starts to poke its head... which we can surely read as you saying non-EU migrants don't?...and now the strawman is set to stun Clear things up for usI would, but then there's the problem of how much more you're going to disingenuously infer from my posts for your self-serving, intellectually-dishonest ways, see. So, I think I'll wait until you mend your debating ways a bit, before doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Maybe if we saw more footage of the bombing and utter devastation in some of these places we might have more sympathy for their plight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Maybe if we saw more footage of the bombing and utter devastation in some of these places we might have more sympathy for their plight...Point your browser to Liveleak.com. It's the Youtube of such footage by the gigabyte, for the past few years and longer, easily and freely available, no registration required. Be sure to apply some critical faculties and to mind-filter any surrounding bias/propaganda as required (especially the 'snackbars'...they grate after a short while). Sensible types better abstain though, it's also uncensored...and 'grisly' does not begin to do it justice, where Syrian/IS/<etc.> footage is concerned. Use with parsimony, this site will definitely not restore any amount of faith you may have lost in humanity. You may then understand why mainstream news networks don't put any of it on the 6 or even the 10 o'clock news. I'd have thought a "truth seeker" like you would know this resource, tbh Edited August 26, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 But if letting everyone that wants to get into a country for a better standard of living for themselves, is going to have the inevitable effect of lowering the standard of living for the people already there, does that country not have the right to refuse to let them in? That's really the question, and why it's so vital to ascertain what their status actually is, refugee, asylum seeker or economic migrant? We aren't allowed to refuse proven asylum seekers, we can reject the others. Are we allowed to refuse refugees? Genuine question. I agree with you about the importance of ascertaining status. Refugees and asylum seekers should have precedence over economic migrants, particularly at this time when half the world seems to be on the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakho Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Hang on, before you were accusing them of being ecomonic migrants rather than refugees. So if you saw a country were you could get a better standard of living, what would you do? They are economic migrants, a refugee seeks safety and they already have safety, an economic migrant seeks a better standard of living and that why they want to get to the rich countries of Europe. I would work to make the country I already live in as good as the country that can offer a better standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts