'How DARE Brussels tell us how many migrants can live in our country?' says Hungary.

Yes, it is, hence why the US has ~12 million illegal immigrants. In fact, the longer they're in, the more difficult it gets to kick them out because they become integrated more and more. They get married, have families, get jobs and become more crucial parts of the economy and so on.

What happened the world where if someone was in trouble others offered to help? Rejecting 1000 refugees is pathetic.

Why don't the other Muslim countries help then? Or Japan, or China?

We have no obligation to help these people.

At no time in history has the world been as altruistic as you would like to believe.

Why don't the other Muslim countries help then? Or Japan, or China?

We have no obligation to help these people.

At no time in history has the world been as altruistic as you would like to believe.

Because it isn't a problem that is happening on their doorstep. It is happening on our doorstep. Sure, we don't have an obligation (other than common decency) but it is right there, outside our window. I would hope we are not one of the countries that just turns a blind eye and pretends it doesn't exist. That surely isn't the British way?

Considering the west helped bring about this situation, then they are hardly blameless.

Yes they do have an obligation because they are signatories to the 1951 Convention refugees. If you dont wbnat the obligation then dont pretend to have the moral high ground or sing international agreements agreeing to help.

If the situation was reversed the countries we are helping would never aid us. Why should we offer any help at all?

I was (and still am) against the wars and bombings in these countries, and the best way to aid them is to have a safe zone in Syria. That way, they don't settle here and can go back to their homes when the conflict comes to an end.

Because you sugned an international agreement to say you would help. What dont you get about that?



All very well saying you are against wars and bombings, but the west went in and kicked everything off as ro why there is sych a crisis in these countries. Stop pretending you arent responsible.

Not like the British people had a hand in any agreement. I'm sure the majority would like us to withdraw from it, given the option.

These countries have a history of violence and dictatorships. If you'd rather that remained then so be it. In my opinion they should be left to it.

Bringing in hordes of poor, crime prone and (mostly) uneducated people from an entirely different culture is an incredibly foolish thing to do. Can you not see that?

The UK's response is, "You have no legal grounds to enter our territory.", as a result of which the UK has taken hardly any refugees.

The Schengen Zone's response was supposed to be, "You have no legal grounds to enter our territory.", a response that was short-circuited by Merkel and Löfven without consulting Hungary and without Hungary's permission.

Nope, the US has so many as there is little political will at the top to remove them

No, it is the lack of public will to bear the necessary consequences of such a decision.

Public will is there (as seen by Trump support etc), big business wont let it happen (up until now anyway).

Nope, the US has so many as there is little political will at the top to remove them, if there was, they would soon be gone.

Police are even told to let go illegals that they find.

As I said, it is very easy to remove illegals, it does not matter if they have a job (the job would also be illegal) or married etc, they are still illegals.

It's also worth noting that we have a really, really stupid law here that we can't get rid of without a constitutional amendment.

Basically, jus solis is enshrined in the constitution. So basically, if someone comes here from an other country on vacation, and they happen to give birth while they're here, their baby will have American citizenship automatically.

That's why "anchor babies" are an issue. The idea people have is that the child is an American citizen, and thus has a right to stay here (we can't legally deport the child along with the parents), and then building on that idea, people say that the parents should be given a right to stay here so that the family isn't separated.

When in reality, I think the problem is that the baby shouldn't have been given American citizenship automatically. I mean, there are situations where I would approve it, for instance if the child would have been stateless otherwise... but if the child gains the parent's citizenship on birth and wouldn't be stateless, I don't see why they should gain American citizenship automatically.

We would amend the constitution, but the left would never have it because they want mass immigration, and this is a loophole they want left open.

People argue that only those from third-world countries who are desperate anyway would go this far, but the truth is that it's abused by people who aren't desperate at all. It's not unheard of for people from first-world countries who want their kid to go to an American university to travel here, have the baby, go back home, and then have the kid apply for federal aid when they're ready to come to school here. Sometimes they can even get in-state tuition on top of that, depending on when they move back.

If the situation was reversed the countries we are helping would never aid us. Why should we offer any help at all?

I was (and still am) against the wars and bombings in these countries, and the best way to aid them is to have a safe zone in Syria. That way, they don't settle here and can go back to their homes when the conflict comes to an end.