European immigration crisis

Thoughts?

It had been going along steadily in 3rd gear for a while but since the pictures of the kid lying dead on the beach showed up it seems to have shot into 4th.

I was literally about to post about this, what the fuck.  

Why is all the talk about the UK and Canada not doing their best to take all of these refugees in, what are other countries in the Middle East doing to help?

Camo is expected to announce that the UK will take in thousands more from Syria.

Theo Filippo wrote:I was literally about to post about this, what the fuck.  

Why is all the talk about the UK and Canada not doing their best to take all of these refugees in, what are other countries in the Middle East doing to help?

Great minds, mf.

Because we're the most racist, obviously.

Glen Miller wrote:Camo is expected to announce that the UK will take in thousands more from Syria.

Can't wait for the cultural enrichment.

Migrants shouldn't be a concern, they should go through the proper channels else be deported. Refugees are a different case. Countries in the middle east, and Turkey, have taken a lot in. Between Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt they've taken an estimated 4 million. I'm not sure of the exact conditions in these camps, I'm sure they aren't excellent but if 4 million are happy to put up with them they can't be uninhabitable. Certainly an upgrade of where they've been living else they wouldn't leave. You have to question the mentality of people that are willing to risk drowning to get to Europe when they could easily make it to one of these neighbouring countries.

Keyser Söze wrote:Migrants shouldn't be a concern, they should go through the proper channels else be deported. Refugees are a different case. Countries in the middle east, and Turkey, have taken a lot in. Between Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt they've taken an estimated 4 million. I'm not sure of the exact conditions in these camps, I'm sure they aren't excellent but if 4 million are happy to put up with them they can't be uninhabitable. Certainly an upgrade of where they've been living else they wouldn't leave. You have to question the mentality of people that are willing to risk drowning to get to Europe when they could easily make it to one of these neighbouring countries.      

I think a lot of people are getting mixed up between the terms migrants and refugees, all the debate has been about refugees over here are you living in England by the way? I'm more wondering why Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait haven't apparently been doing anything to help.

Wasn't their a problem earlier in the summer with Calais and migrants? I think there has been a crossover between that and this issue with refugees. The Africans coming over on boats from Libya where the initial problem, they're chancers. I see them all the time and they seem fine, obviously their lives aren't great back home but 17million other people are OK with it. They stand on street corners like prostitutes waiting for people to pick them up to do all manner of manual labour. Once they save up enough money they hop on the next boat to Europe and most claim to be refugees.

Arab countries in general are abysmal when it comes to helping out refugees. They're extremely xenophobic. You're right places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait should be doing far more and should be blamed more than places like the UK and Canada.

Theo Filippo wrote:I was literally about to post about this, what the fuck.  

Why is all the talk about the UK and Canada not doing their best to take all of these refugees in, what are other countries in the Middle East doing to help?

fuck off you jew, we have too many arabs here don't need any more, i'm already anxious about going on public transit

We have a moral obligation to take people in, I think that regardless of whether there's any war going on to be honest, there's far too much inequality in the world that people think they're doing something about by sending £2 a month to Oxfam or whatever. That said, I have deep reservations about this policy of letting ones who've crossed loads of countries to get to Britain actually come to Britain for several reasons.

First of all anyone any near Britain is already in a safe country, they should stay where they are if they are asylum seekers. If they are leaving because they think they'll be treated better here then as far as I'm concerned they are illegal economic migrants. We shouldn't be rewarding criminals.

Second allowing them in once they get to Europe encourages more people to undertake these extremely dangerous journeys, this is going to result in people dying. Anyone who causes us to bring these people in will have blood on their hands. It's also hugely unfair that people who are unable to make these journeys can't have asylum and just have to suffer it.

There's also the risk of terrorism. These countries we're accepting asylum seekers from are filled with evil, bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists and their sympathisers. Nearly everyone in these places supports the Palestinian cause. If we start accepting thousands of these people there is a strong risk that there will be infiltrators who will seek to bring pain on us. Has this risk been properly assessed and appropriate countermeasures taken? I don't know.

I'm not saying I'm fully against taking people in, but I think the case for it is so easily made and so obviously emotional that people aren't taking the time to give this issue the requisite thought. It needs to be looked at coolly, not taking in thousands because a dead kid's washed up on a beach. The result of an ill-considered reaction could well be more dead kids on beaches.

Keyser Söze wrote:Wasn't their a problem earlier in the summer with Calais and migrants? I think there has been a crossover between that and this issue with refugees. The Africans coming over on boats from Libya where the initial problem, they're chancers. I see them all the time and they seem fine, obviously their lives aren't great back home but 17million other people are OK with it. They stand on street corners like prostitutes waiting for people to pick them up to do all manner of manual labour. Once they save up enough money they hop on the next boat to Europe and most claim to be refugees.

Arab countries in general are abysmal when it comes to helping out refugees. They're extremely xenophobic. You're right places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait should be doing far more and should be blamed more than places like the UK and Canada.

I saw a documentary on it earlier, they really are like prostitutes. 

The problem I've been wondering about is what's going to happen next if in five years time Yemen has a mass exodus similar to Syria (I know they've got the Assad regime and ISIS both causing havoc in Syria rather than just potentially ISIS in Yemen). Europe can't take all of these people. 

ResurrectionRooney wrote:We have a moral obligation to take people in, I think that regardless of whether there's any war going on to be honest, there's far too much inequality in the world that people think they're doing something about by sending £2 a month to Oxfam or whatever.  That said, I have deep reservations about this policy of letting ones who've crossed loads of countries to get to Britain actually come to Britain for several reasons.  

First of all anyone any near Britain is already in a safe country, they should stay where they are if they are asylum seekers.  If they are leaving because they think they'll be treated better here then as far as I'm concerned they are illegal economic migrants.  We shouldn't be rewarding criminals.

Second allowing them in once they get to Europe encourages more people to undertake these extremely dangerous journeys, this is going to result in people dying.  Anyone who causes us to bring these people in will have blood on their hands.  It's also hugely unfair that people who are unable to make these journeys can't have asylum and just have to suffer it.  

There's also the risk of terrorism.  These countries we're accepting asylum seekers from are filled with evil, bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists and their sympathisers.  Nearly everyone in these places supports the Palestinian cause.  If we start accepting thousands of these people there is a strong risk that there will be infiltrators who will seek to bring pain on us.  Has this risk been properly assessed and appropriate countermeasures taken?  I don't know.

I'm not saying I'm fully against taking people in, but I think the case for it is so easily made and so obviously emotional that people aren't taking the time to give this issue the requisite thought.  It needs to be looked at coolly, not taking in thousands because a dead kid's washed up on a beach.  The result of an ill-considered reaction could well be more dead kids on beaches.

I agree with most of that, the photo of the dead child was a great piece of propaganda.

Just seen that Cameron has pledged that there will be 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years, he said there would only be 1000 a few weeks back. Absolutely mind-blowing.

RR pretty much hit the nail on the head with that.

RR wrote all that just to get the line about Palestine in.

Keyser Söze wrote:RR wrote all that just to get the line about Palestine in.

It's relevant, there are certain things that are expected of you if you're going to live in Britain, not supporting terrorism is one of them. If you support terrorism or terrorists you are not one of us and should not be allowed here. That goes for IRA sympathisers as much as Hamas/Al-Quaeda/Islamic State supporters by the way.

Keyser Söze wrote:RR wrote all that just to get the line about Palestine in.

Exactly haha. I was reading it and I'm like, waiting for it...waiting for it....

Watching Question Time I've noticed that nearly everyone who supports a western country taking on refugees is of a social status and wealth level that they will never actually encounter one.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Watching Question Time I've noticed that nearly everyone who supports a western country taking on refugees is of a social status and wealth level that they will never actually encounter one.

Same shit, different day. All they do is try to appeal to emotion and brand anyone in disagreement some sort of -ism or -phobe.

Keyser Söze wrote:RR wrote all that just to get the line about Palestine in.

FCB wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:RR wrote all that just to get the line about Palestine in.

Exactly haha. I was reading it and I'm like, waiting for it...waiting for it....

These morons ignoring how spot on I was about terrorist infiltrators to argue about Palestine.

What a retarded sentence. Makes no sense.

Where are these infiltrators?

SBSP wrote:Where are these infiltrators?

If I knew that they wouldn't be very good infiltrators.

So you're making it up. Bravo

I'm not making anything up, I just don't know where exactly these infiltrators are.  I believe one of them is in a morgue in Paris at the moment.  The Syrian Ambassador to India has said that around 20% of refugees arriving in the west are linked with ISIS.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that this wouldn't happen, you take in tens of thousands of military aged men in a country full of terrorists and extremists, even a semi-competent enemy would walk through that open door.  Unfortunately from what I've seen on here members of the Muslim community in the west appear to be more concerned with hating Israel and supporting the Palestinians than stopping the people killing in their God's name or worrying about their own country.

Free Palestine.

Fuck Palestine.

Free Palestine.

SBSP wrote:So you're making it up. Bravo

http://news.sky.com/story/1590914/paris-killers-used-refugee-crisis-to-slip-in

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html

Nobody thought they were refugees you mong, what we thought would happen, what I warned of, was that terrorists could pretend to be refugees to sneak across the border. I don't give two fucks what passports they held.

There's no evidence that happened.