Poor migrants from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan

[Anna B]

Point your browser to Liveleak.com.

 

Unedited footage of such by the gigabyte for the past few years and longer, easily and freely available. Be sure to apply some critical faculties and to mind-filter any surrounding bias/propaganda as required.

 

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. 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

No, to be honest, like most people all I really know about this situation is what I see on TV. I do know however that we get a very edited version of events on there.

People just don't have time to look at everything on the internet, (or even have access to it - a third of people over 60 don't even have a computer.)

For many people (the majority?) TV news is their main source of information which is why I think that to change hearts and minds, some of the footage has to go mainstream.

 

I haven't got embroiled in this subject because I have no idea what the answer is.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Anna B

[sakho]

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.

 

This should give you a good idea about how much destruction there as been in Syria, assuming that its accurate.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/03/left-syria-150317133753354.html

 

57% of hospitals damaged

36% of hospitals destroyed

At least 50% of Syrian physicians have fled

At least 3 million buildings have been affected

1.2 million homes destroyed

9,000 industrial facilities completely destroyed

At least 3,878 schools destroyed

At least 2,500 schools now shelter to 65,000 IDP’s

2.8 million Syrians are out of school

At least 1,451 mosques were targeted

348 mosques totally destroyed

At least 98 churches damaged or destroyed

[SnailyBoy]

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.

 

How would you do that?

 

---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 15:42 ----------

 

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.

 

Yep, that country certainly has the right to refuse entry. However, it doesn't stop the desire for someone to want a better standard of living by moving into another country

[L00b]

No, to be honest, like most people all I really know about this situation is what I see on TV. I do know however that we get a very edited version of events on there.

You are obviously aware that what is broadcast on mainstream media is highly sanitised.

 

You obviously have Internet access, and time to engage in debate on here.

 

So why not push your curiosity just that little bit further and find some answers and look at unedited footage yourself, to answer your own questions?

People just don't have time to look at everything on the internet, (or even have access to it - a third of people over 60 don't even have a computer.)

What does what other people have time to do or not, and whether they have web access or not, got to do with sating your own curiosity?

 

Genuine question, as your reply post suggests that you're happy being mushroomed by the mainstream media with the sheeple, even though you're mindful that it is not really informing you enough/that much. Which doesn't sound like you (if I may say so).

For many people (the majority?) TV news is their main source of information which is why I think that to change hearts and minds, some of the footage has to go mainstream.

It would only fan the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment, a fire that was started a good while back and which is now feeding quite nicely, regrettably.

 

But rest assured that if the powers-that-be do eventually decide to go in there all guns blazing, you will start to see such footage indeed, to help shape public opinion and garner support.

I haven't got embroiled in this subject because I have no idea what the answer is.

Cynically, but commonsensically, short of going in there again and razing the place and ideology to the ground (I would actually support that, if the West's RoE matched the 'total war' approach of the enemy...a big IF indeed), there is no further answer to be given by the West.

 

By now, unless the West commits to going in again and doing the job right (this time), I reckon the most practical 'answer' is to draw up all the EU bridges (the population transfer has got to be stemmed somehow, before it amplifies much further and becomes self-perpetuating), continue to throw some goodwill and air support the anti-IS way, let special ops of EU nations loose on outra-EU people traffickers without RoEs (so the people smuggling profits can never outweigh the risks), and have nothing further to do with any of them until they sort themselves out, with or without the Saudis, Iran and/or Israel wading in there with their very big boots.

 

Callous? Maybe. Been called way worse anyway. And I'd sleep at night. Like a baby.

 

It's like troublesome tots and puppies: so long as you continue to pay them a lot of attention, they'll continue to tantrum and misbehave. You turn your back on them long enough, they learn soon enough.

Edited August 26, 2015 by L00b

[gomgeg]

Natjack. Quite right,give a reasoned opinion on here and receive juvenile abuse from some brainless nut job, reply to it, he then reports you and gets your posts taken off. Only to be expected I suppose.

[tzijlstra]

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.

 

Been over this a million times, but let me just ask you this: Does a retired housewife deserve to get the same pension as a childless mother who worked in a corner shop all her life, or shall we just generalise all pensioners and decide on that basis?

 

Flatten out the discussion more and you will be discussing whether right angles are more beneficial than curves.

[gomgeg]

tzijistra. Childless mother? No,some one who has worked all their life doesn't get the same pension as a retired housewife.

I saw a immigrant from an Eastern European country on TV the other week,he was working as a labourer, very commendable if we had zero unemployment.

He had three kids, his wife couldn't speak English but her face lit up when the social worker said they could claim another £285 per week in benefits,according to figures I saw recently education for a child averages £6000 per year, throw in free healthcare, free prescriptions, free dental care etc and you are probably looking at a figure over£35K per year. If any one can explain how this is of net benefit to the country I would like to hear it. Incidentally I'm expecting this post to be removed like the last two I've made because they were no PC enough.

[tzijlstra]

tzijistra. Childless mother? No,some one who has worked all their life doesn't get the same pension as a retired housewife.

I saw a immigrant from an Eastern European country on TV the other week,he was working as a labourer, very commendable if we had zero unemployment.

He had three kids, his wife couldn't speak English but her face lit up when the social worker said they could claim another £285 per week in benefits,according to figures I saw recently education for a child averages £6000 per year, throw in free healthcare, free prescriptions, free dental care etc and you are probably looking at a figure over£35K per year. If any one can explain how this is of net benefit to the country I would like to hear it. Incidentally I'm expecting this post to be removed like the last two I've made because they were no PC enough.

 

I'm rereading my post and realise it isn't the best example, so a clarification, our society provides a general pension but that doesn't mean that every pensioner is on the same low pension.

 

The same goes for immigrants, they come in all sorts of different types and it is wrong to paint them all with the same brush.

 

Take your example: I have never claimed a penny in benefits, not here, nor in the Netherlands, I am a net contributor, as is my wife. Yet there are people, like you and Zamo, who watch some nonsense on the telly and then proceed to claim that migrants are a drain because some social worker, somewhere, on the telly says some nonsense, so you believe it must be true and it is the standard, which it can't be as the maximum for couples is 114.85 if they are on a minimum income plus some 20£ per child.

 

So what you get is people like you who blame immigrants whereas they should be blaming the benefit system. The bigger point here is though: asylum seekers come here for a different reason than EU migrants, they need to be assessed on a case by case basis and the UK has to take its responsibility in doing that rather than standing idly by with a broken system and moaning that there are asylum seekers.

 

The EU is trying to fix the problem but Britain doesn't want to play, so instead they just build bigger fences for 5 million, because that plays well on the telly. Why does that play well? Because people like you are gullible enough to believe that your politicians are doing the right thing, the reason you are gullible? You don't understand what generalisation is.

Edited August 26, 2015 by tzijlstra

[sakho]

I'm rereading my post and realise it isn't the best example, so a clarification, our society provides a general pension but that doesn't mean that every pensioner is on the same low pension.

 

The same goes for immigrants, they come in all sorts of different types and it is wrong to paint them all with the same brush.

 

Take your example: I have never claimed a penny in benefits, not here, nor in the Netherlands, I am a net contributor, as is my wife. Yet there are people, like you and Zamo, who watch some nonsense on the telly and then proceed to claim that migrants are a drain because some social worker, somewhere, on the telly says some nonsense, so you believe it must be true and it is the standard, which it can't be as the maximum for couples is 114.85 if they are on a minimum income plus some 20£ per child.

 

So what you get is people like you who blame immigrants whereas they should be blaming the benefit system. The bigger point here is though: asylum seekers come here for a different reason than EU migrants, they need to be assessed on a case by case basis and the UK has to take its responsibility in doing that rather than standing idly by with a broken system and moaning that there are asylum seekers.

 

The EU is trying to fix the problem but Britain doesn't want to play, so instead they just build bigger fences for 5 million, because that plays well on the telly. Why does that play well? Because people like you are gullible enough to believe that your politicians are doing the right thing, the reason you are gullible? You don't understand what generalisation is.

 

Some migrants are posative contributors, some are a drain, but as a collective group they are a drain, if we had some kind of control then we could have the posative contributors and reject the ones most likley to be drain, even then we still need to look at numbers because this country is already overpopulated.

[Halibut]

Some migrants are posative contributors, some are a drain, but as a collective group they are a drain, if we had some kind of control then we could have the posative contributors and reject the ones most likley to be drain, even then we still need to look at numbers because this country is already overpopulated.

 

Repeating lies doesn't make them true y'know.