BarryRiley Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Plain wrong there Barry. A great many refugees are fleeing Syria, which most definitely is in a state of war. A large number also are from Eritrea - you can read about why they are fleeing here - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/eritrea-migrants-child-soldier-fled-what-is-going I'm not talking about the Syrians, I'm talking about those from African nations. Yes Eritrea has it's problems, such as the military conscription which many wish to avoid and I don't blame them, but I don't think mass migration is an answer. Consider the following countries which are also home to what we in the West would consider human rights abuses: Saudi Arabia Qatar Dubai China Yemen Myanmar Somalia Pakistan India DRC The list goes on. Would it be a solution therefore to open the borders to all of these country's nationals? It does only seem fair, considering the danger their residents are in. However, and I know it sounds harsh, countries like Britain, France and Germany aren't safe to live in and progressive because they happened to be created that way. They are like this because people have fought for it. There's no reason why the countries above can't also enjoy the same success - but mass exodus isn't going to solve anything. The poor who are born in those countries are still going to be subject to abuses - in fact moreso, because the only ones who wanted change left to live somewhere else. I feel for the poor of such countries, because while we all look at the Syrian refugees and feel glad that they have escaped danger, we are only looking at the rich ones. We are looking at the doctors, lawyers and teachers who could afford the journey and extortionate people smuggling fees. And the West forget about helping the country's solve their problems in-house because we just assume that everyone who wanted to leave did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 And we should call them what they are, refugees, not migrants. You can argue that they are refugees as they flee war torn areas but once they reach a safe country, and decide to seek greener pastures to boost their economic prospects, they become economic migrants. We have to accept the UK is going to change dramatically in the next few years.... No, the reality is this country will not accept it. It will result in a vote to leave the EU and we will lurch even more to the right. Far right groups will gain in popularity and migrants will once again find themselves facing danger. Race relations will breakdown and we will have conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim. Do you really want to accept that? What needs to be accepted is that 75% of the population want immigration curbed and managed to improve our lot and not just the lot of the migrants. The 25% have had it their way for a long time and it is time for them to do the accepting... this cannot be pushed any further. If you keep pushing then we will not progress towards the Utopian vision for Europe and the world that you have... we will go rapidly backwards and undo all the progress made since the end of WWII. Europe could organise boats. 500 people per day. Off the coast of libya. Stop some of the criminals. Free transport and no barriers to entry? It really will be millions coming then. And what about those left behind? How do countries rebuild when half their people have left? What will happen to their economies? What will happen to our economies? Where's the big picture, long-term thought in all this? We need to stop being selfish and thinking about how to ease our consciences and start thinking about the long-term outcomes of the decisions we take now. How we going to solve third world corruption? Governments and factions killing its own people? genuine question. If we could make a dent in that, it would have happened by now Surely. My bold - Exactly. We can't and we need to learn to stay out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 If we had been taking in all the migrants that wanted to come to this country since, say, the beginning of the year, how would that have stopped this poor 3 yr old drowning in the med? Do you believe that he and his family were on a perilous boat crossing which they (the adults at least) knew could well result in their deaths, because they thought that they could earn more in the UK? Because that's what a migrant is. Or do you believe that they were fleeing a war zone, where they were likely to be shot whilst trying to buy food? Because that's what a refugee is. It's important to use the correct word to describe these people, because it has huge implications regarding how we think about them, and why we think they've left their home. ---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 09:47 ---------- We need to stop being selfish and thinking about how to ease our consciences and start thinking about the long-term outcomes of the decisions we take now. This is you making and excuse for advocating that we act without basic humanity. You make some vague hand waving claim about the future to justify letting refugees from a war that we contributed to die in an attempt to flee that war. There ARE already millions of refugee's, most don't come here though, they don't want to, most are in the neighbouring countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Plain wrong there Barry. A great many refugees are fleeing Syria, which most definitely is in a state of war. A large number also are from Eritrea - you can read about why they are fleeing here - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/eritrea-migrants-child-soldier-fled-what-is-going You may as well give up on that argument because it is nothing more than a technicality. All that matters is what will happen across Europe if millions are allowed to settle and what will the exodus mean for those left behind in the countries they have left? Seriously... what do you think is going to happen? Do you really think it will result in a multi-culture utopia with equality for all? In a rush to be seen as compassionate hero's we are in danger of creating a conflict situation of our own in Europe, undoing decades of progress and destabilising problem countries in Africa and the Middle East even further. FFS when are people going to look beyond what is immediately in front of them and start thinking big picture? Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 And we should do what Ed Milliband voted against. Send the troops in to Syria. Lets give ISIL or what ever name they chose to call themselves a good pasting. Because as well as not supporting ISIS we also don't support the nominally in power government, we DID support the initial rebellion against Asads rule, but not in a material way, only with rhetoric. We DID get involved in the Libyan civil war, and look how well that turned out... And surely justifying body bags of soldiers coming home, is harder to justify than accepting our fair share of refugees? ---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 09:51 ---------- FFS when are people going to look beyond what is immediately in front of them and start thinking big picture? Madness. Your "big picture" is just an excuse to let children drown in the med. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Because as well as not supporting ISIS we also don't support the nominally in power government, we DID support the initial rebellion against Asads rule, but not in a material way, only with rhetoric. We DID get involved in the Libyan civil war, and look how well that turned out... And surely justifying body bags of soldiers coming home, is harder to justify than accepting our fair share of refugees? ---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 09:51 ---------- Your "big picture" is just an excuse to let children drown in the med. But if we dont take action then the problem will get worse. Body bags of a few soldiers to body bags of refugees its still people dying. If we just continue to accept refugees then the problem wont be solved. Syria will be empty and we will be giving in to ISIL. What the refugees want, I'm guessing here, is a safe warm home to go to just like us. I'm sure they would love to return home to a free Syria so why not solve the crisis send in the troops and then these people can return home to rebuild their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Do you believe that he and his family were on a perilous boat crossing which they (the adults at least) knew could well result in their deaths, because they thought that they could earn more in the UK? Because that's what a migrant is. As crazy as it sounds, people are doing this. Consider those who die on a boat journey from Turkey to Greece. Were the Turks killing them? Were they fearing for their lives in Turkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Because as well as not supporting ISIS we also don't support the nominally in power government, we DID support the initial rebellion against Asads rule, but not in a material way, only with rhetoric. We DID get involved in the Libyan civil war, and look how well that turned out... And surely justifying body bags of soldiers coming home, is harder to justify than accepting our fair share of refugees? ---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 09:51 ---------- Your "big picture" is just an excuse to let children drown in the med. That's the reality. It's selfishness writ large and nauseating attempts to look the other way and let children keep drowning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 It's about why they left their home. There are no Turkish migrants dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 This is you making and excuse for advocating that we act without basic humanity. You make some vague hand waving claim about the future to justify letting refugees from a war that we contributed to die in an attempt to flee that war. If acting without basic humanity leads to less people trying to make the journey, and therefore less people dying trying, then should we be acting with basic humanity? Perhaps we need a more sophisticated level of humanity i.e. one that considers the bigger picture and wider outcomes? If acting with basic humanity leads to the fall of the EU, countries embracing nationalism and a backlash against migrants then should we be acting with basic humanity? Is that a price worth paying to make us feel better about ourselves? Sometimes we have to take tough decision. In war a commander will inevitably have to sacrifice some of his own for the great good. In order to get the best outcome they have to put aside 'basic humanity' and make tough decisions and devise strategy that will result in the best outcomes. We are seeing none of that now. We have leaders and bleeding hearts focused entirely on what is on front of them and no consideration is being given to the bigger picture. The focus is 'how can we make ourselves feel better' and not 'what course of action will result in the best long-term outcome'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts