Immigration Crisis - Am I missing something?

The only difference between them is the documentation, no human can be 'illegal'.

In desperate times like these, the documentation (a temporary visa, perhaps) should be provided to those who need it.

Yes, because providing easy documentation to those who cross the sea in rickety boats and thereby endanger the lives of their children is a great way to stop people from crossing the sea in rickety boats and endangering the lives of their children...

they come for a better life and have shown through both their determination and desperation that they're willing to work hard for it.

I guess you take the Katie Hopkins approach to shooting them all at sea as a deterrent then? Planning to start Britain's answer to the Third Reich are you? I'm sure History will be proud of you.

By 'determination' you mean paying criminal gangs thousands of pounds to break numerous laws, reject help when it's provided by countries they're currently in, and riot and demonstrate against police while disrupting the lives of citizens of towns and cities they're passing through?

They're not 'willing to work hard' for anything, other than a quick, illegal, route to easy street paid for by my taxes. And yours.

Of course I don't want that, but that's never going to happen so don't be ridiculous. Consider, however, that doing it your way means eventually those border countries are going to fill up and all those migrants are going to come here anyway. It doesn't stop the spread of people at all. It merely just delays it. Neither does it excuse Britain of it's moral obligation to other people. So why worry about it if the people would come anyway? As I've already explained, they come for a better life and have shown through both their determination and desperation that they're willing to work hard for it.

Quick? not at all. Cushy? not even slightly.

They're giving up their whole lives on the fraction of a chance to live a better life. Do those pictures do nothing to you?

I can't, I'm sorry. Some people are just too heartless to merit talking to.

I think you'll find they're not, that just you making assumptions to help you sleep better at night. But with regards to the economic migrants (ie. those not coming from war-torn or totally unstable countries), putting yourself in their shoes, can you fault them? That is what many migrants do, between and within Europe and America. It's human nature to try and better themselves, and as long as they try, and contribute to the society, the only thing that separates them from an American in Britain is their nationality. Migrants (especially economic migrants) actually work harder than many native Brits and thus put more into the welfare system than they take out. That is no bad thing. And the scenarios The Sun likes to focus on? They're every bit as rare as the native brits who do nothing for society.

Quick? not at all. Cushy? not even slightly.

They're giving up their whole lives on the fraction of a chance to live a better life. Do those pictures do nothing to you?

I can't, I'm sorry. Some people are just too heartless to merit talking to.

Politicians are haunted by the political invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the decision to focus on not controlling the country has led to lawless states developing with some areas not controlled by the government. The solution to the immigration crisis involves the use of the military to set up secure, safe cities in the war-torn countries where immigrants can be housed. These safe cities must be fully controlled by the West, being operated as mini, Westernised countries abroad, where the police, courts, government, and leaders are Western military personnel. As time progresses the size of safe cities can be expanded to incorporate other cities in the country to develop an ever-expanding safe country in the war-torn country. When the safe cities have been expanded to incorporate the entire country, the locals can start having a greater say in local rule but the West's influence will remain in an ever-declining aspect for years after.

Clearly there isn't an easy solution to this crisis, given how divided EU countries are on the issue of absorbing these refugees. However, they undoubtedly do have the right to be accepted into these countries and every effort should be made to facilitate this.

What troubles me about this is that many of these refugees are rejecting the aid given to them not only by state governments but also by humanitarian aid organisations such as UNICEF - images from Hungary on the news this morning showing water bottles and food packages being rejected because many of these refugees have decided to walk the >100 miles to Vienna instead, for no reason other than that it is their "dream". This seems to be the same reason given by many of the Calais refugees for attempting to swim the channel - the expectation of superior treatment in the UK.

Correct me if I've missed something in all of this, but aren't these expectations totally unreasonable? As migrants fleeing conflicts, these people are absolutely entitled to seek refuge in other countries that have ratified the UN Refugee Convention. They are being provided in the vast majority of cases with the basic essentials for existence (food, water, shelter etc) until more permanent solutions can be arranged. And yet this treatment is being rejected and cursed at. Unfortunately many of the extremely saddening headlines that have made the news recently are results of their own doing - attempting to swim across the channel in the false hope that their "dreams" will play out over here, or children tragically drowning off the coast of Turkey, not because of mistreatment by the Turkish state, but simply because their parents didn't properly take care of them.

Cliffs: These refugees are entitled by right to seek refuge in other countries, and EU nations are required to do all they can to offer asylum and the possibility of resettlement. But these refugees are not entitled by right to reject aid efforts, pursue misguided "dreams" of living in countries like Germany and the UK, and then blame these nation states when their travails end in tragedy.

Again, if I've missed something in all of this, please enlighten me.

Politicians are haunted by the political invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the decision to focus on not controlling the country has led to lawless states developing with some areas not controlled by the government. The solution to the immigration crisis involves the use of the military to set up secure, safe cities in the war-torn countries where immigrants can be housed. These safe cities must be fully controlled by the West, being operated as mini, Westernised countries abroad, where the police, courts, government, and leaders are Western military personnel. As time progresses the size of safe cities can be expanded to incorporate other cities in the country to develop an ever-expanding safe country in the war-torn country. When the safe cities have been expanded to incorporate the entire country, the locals can start having a greater say in local rule but the West's influence will remain in an ever-declining aspect for years after.

I guess you take the Katie Hopkins approach to shooting them all at sea as a deterrent then? Planning to start Britain's answer to the Third Reich are you? I'm sure History will be proud of you.

Quick? not at all. Cushy? not even slightly.

They're giving up their whole lives on the fraction of a chance to live a better life. Do those pictures do nothing to you?

I can't, I'm sorry. Some people are just too heartless to merit talking to.