Ovious Question - why don't refugees in danger go to the nearest safe country?

Why do they need to go to a White country?

Presumably because they are economic migrants who want to claim the free healthcare, benefits and housing that are supplied in rich countries like the UK and Germany.
If they were really looking out for safety, they would invest their money in a new life in relatively underpopulated (per square mile) eastern European countries as opposed to giving people smugglers thousands of Euros to take them on dangerous journeys.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

Minions

1

As posted above. We, the tax payer, will pay for them all. healthcare, housing, income - all of it. That's why.

Reply 3

CourtneyAct1

10

Most of them ARE in the nearby safe countries. To the point where it's not sustainable for these countries to safely take more.

Reply 4

strangesquark

10

They are economic migrants if they get to a safe country but decide they can get better benefits in western Europe. But also the nearer neighbours like he Gulf states aren't keen to let them in, so they have to go a bit further.

Reply 5

The Owl of Minerva

14

Yeahhhh... **** the refugees who have lost everything for wanting to go to place where they can actually build a life worth living and get back on their own two feet. The nerve of these people.

Reply 6

phoenixsilver

3

Original post by The Owl of Minerva

Yeahhhh... **** the refugees who have lost everything for wanting to go to place where they can actually build a life worth living and get back on their own two feet. The nerve of these people.

Yet these poor people manage to muster up thousands of Euros to give to people smugglers which take the migrants on illegal and dangerous journeys by boat.

Why don't they invest these large quantities of money in a life where they already are, in a SAFE refugee camp?
Simple answer - because they know they'll get to freeload on UK taxpayer.

BETTER YET, why don't the men fight for their country rather than being cowards? You didn't see British men fleeing in their millions during WW2, did you? They fought for their country!

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

Physflop

13

Can't believe countries are letting all these migrants in. Don't get me wrong I'm all for helping the women and kids in the Syrian camps but not the millions of men that are now in Europe. Go back and fight for your country instead of running away and leaving the most vulnerable to fend for themselves

Reply 8

The Owl of Minerva

14

Original post by phoenixsilver

BETTER YET, why don't the men fight for their country rather than being cowards? You didn't see British men fleeing in their millions during WW2, did you? They fought for their country!

Yeah why don't they fight for a country where every institution is a shambles? Why don't they prop a regime that has already oppressed them? Do you really think the Syrian state has enough funds to recruit en masse? Do you think the army is a source of stability to any family in that volatile region? How does one leave his family in precarious conditions to go fight on a front for a government they do not trust? The comparison with Britain is wrong on so many counts! When Britain fought the Second World War, it was still a global Empire that was propped up by the US. Furthermore dodging conscription was a crime! What have the poor in Syria to fight for?

Original post by phoenixsilver

Yet these poor people manage to muster up thousands of Euros to give to people smugglers which take the migrants on illegal and dangerous journeys by boat.Why don't they invest these large quantities of money in a life where they already are, in a SAFE refugee camp?Simple answer - because they know they'll get to freeload on UK taxpayer.

Yeah I am sure they are clamoring to get at the 36.95 pounds with no right to work that the UK govt will give them. Your point also assumes that these people have knowledge of the benefits system. Many probably don't. They just know a better life is possible in western Europe, the sort of life that countries like Turkey and Lebanon---that have already buckled under the pressure of the crisis---can not offer. And what about the people who spent this money (which could be all of their life savings) getting out of the war zones? What do they have to build a life? This so called investment you talk about is easier said than done, especially in countries and amidst populaces that don't welcome you.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

Fango_Jett

17

Most of them are in places like Turkey, Jordan, Iraq etc. close by.

It's only a fraction of those former refugees coming here as economic migrants.

I can't say I blame them, if I were in that situation, I would go for the best quality of life for me and my family as well.

Doesn't mean we should let them all in however.

Reply 10

Dexa

1

At least we live on an island. Much easier for border control.

Reply 11

Jade_Howe

2

Oh my god I have never seen so much stupid in one place before. Why do people always say that refugees come to the uk for benefits? they aren't allowed to work! Refugees aren't given indefinite right to remain, they're status in the country lasts until it's deemed safe to go home and until that time they're given accommodation and an allowance to live on! and no the refugees aren't all coming to the UK! with regards to Syria there have only been 216 people granted asylum by the uk in the last year. lots of them go to nearby countries but there are 4 million people with nowhere to go. and no the refugee camps are not very safe... and please tell me, would you want to stay in a refugee camp for the foreseeable future? with your children? potentially give birth there? no. 20,000 people over 5 years is nothing and Cameron has stated that these people will be granted safe passage from camps in the middle east to the uk, so it wont be people paying smugglers to get them over to Europe. there is a huge difference between an economic migrant and a refugee. economic migrants WANT to leave in order to have a better financial future, refugees no longer have a government that protects them

Reply 12

Pulse.

18

Apparently they've all got family in Germany and Britain.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

Howard

5

An obvious question deserves an obvious answer:

Because the nearest safe countries are still crap holes. Who wants to end up on a camp in Lebanon when Germany and Austria have thrown their doors wide open?

Reply 14

Pegasus2

16

Original post by The Owl of Minerva

Yeahhhh... **** the refugees who have lost everything for wanting to go to place where they can actually build a life worth living and get back on their own two feet. The nerve of these people.

Except they travel to the most expensive parts of Europe where most Europeans would have a hard time paying the bills.

Also, no doubt you've seen the protests of even a small number of them when they don't get their way.

I'm talking about that train from Hungary to Germany. What are they going to do when they get to one of the more expensive areas and they can't afford to live there?

They are in a safe EU country. They shoudn't be demanding to go anywhere. I would expect them to be grateful they've made it to safety not refusing food and issuing demands.

The other issue is now they have been let in, they will disapear and more will come because they herd they were sucessful.

Unsustainable.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

Manitude

20

Original post by phoenixsilver

Presumably because they are economic migrants who want to claim the free healthcare, benefits and housing that are supplied in rich countries like the UK and Germany.
If they were really looking out for safety, they would invest their money in a new life in relatively underpopulated (per square mile) eastern European countries as opposed to giving people smugglers thousands of Euros to take them on dangerous journeys.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Minor point, but Germany doesn't have an NHS like the UK and Canada. They have multi-payer healthcare system, not too dissimilar to Obamacare if I understand it correctly. From what I've heard many doctors will refuse treatment if the patient doesn't have an insurance card (obviously not in emergency situations though). I was looking at moving to Germany a few months ago so I had to look into these things.

Best solution to this crisis I've heard is what the Catholic church has said - one migrant family per parish in all of Europe. It's not often I agree with what an organised religion has to say but it's a feasible and reasonable measure. It would ensure that no country has to take the brunt of the migrants as the size of one parish tends to be pretty large compared to one family. Also by allocating parishes to migrants it means that nobody really gets to chose where they end up based on how good the social security of the country is but rather relying on the charity of individuals.

Reply 16

Jade_Howe

2

I don't know much about Obamacare, but I grew up in Germany. emergency healthcare and basic healthcare are free. but the health insurances work like the nhs. ou pay a percentage of your wages (rathe than the government allocating money) but the government dictates how much they are allowed to charge. each company will have various tariffs for healthcare and charge different rates for what they provide which is how they compete with each other. and there is a small selection of insurance companies that fall into this category. and those who are unemployed have a small deduction from their benefits that go to healthcare and so they are always covered (plus better, for the first year o being unemployed you get 75% of your wages) then on top of these you get the private healthcare which is the same as private over hear, you pay them and f you need any treatment yo ay for it up front and claim the money back. from what I know every eu country provides basic health care for free

Original post by Manitude

Minor point, but Germany doesn't have an NHS like the UK and Canada. They have multi-payer healthcare system, not too dissimilar to Obamacare if I understand it correctly. From what I've heard many doctors will refuse treatment if the patient doesn't have an insurance card (obviously not in emergency situations though). I was looking at moving to Germany a few months ago so I had to look into these things.Best solution to this crisis I've heard is what the Catholic church has said - one migrant family per parish in all of Europe. It's not often I agree with what an organised religion has to say but it's a feasible and reasonable measure. It would ensure that no country has to take the brunt of the migrants as the size of one parish tends to be pretty large compared to one family. Also by allocating parishes to migrants it means that nobody really gets to chose where they end up based on how good the social security of the country is but rather relying on the charity of individuals.

Reply 17

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Manitude

Minor point, but Germany doesn't have an NHS like the UK and Canada. They have multi-payer healthcare system, not too dissimilar to Obamacare if I understand it correctly. From what I've heard many doctors will refuse treatment if the patient doesn't have an insurance card (obviously not in emergency situations though). I was looking at moving to Germany a few months ago so I had to look into these things.

Best solution to this crisis I've heard is what the Catholic church has said - one migrant family per parish in all of Europe. It's not often I agree with what an organised religion has to say but it's a feasible and reasonable measure. It would ensure that no country has to take the brunt of the migrants as the size of one parish tends to be pretty large compared to one family. Also by allocating parishes to migrants it means that nobody really gets to chose where they end up based on how good the social security of the country is but rather relying on the charity of individuals.

Point to note. Germany as with the rest of Europe does insist on private healthcare, but those who are unemployed etc get it for free.

Universal healthcare is standard throughout all of Europe. Europe just has a slightly different funding model than the UK.

Reply 18

mojojojo101

17

Lebanon has anywhere between 1 and 2 million Syrian refuges (official UN figure is 1.2 million), that's in a country where the general population is about 5 million.

To say that Syrians are not staying in the region, is frankly, willfully ignorant.

Reply 19

chazwomaq

18

Original post by mojojojo101

Lebanon has anywhere between 1 and 2 million Syrian refuges (official UN figure is 1.2 million), that's in a country where the general population is about 5 million.

To say that Syrians are not staying in the region, is frankly, willfully ignorant.

Quite right. Most refugees are still in Syria, most who aren't are in the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

A couple of months out of date now, but:

Ovious Question - why don't refugees in danger go to the nearest safe country?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you