EU refugee quotas proposed

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

SeaPony

Original post by Reformed2010

What drugs you taking?

Reality?

Reply 21

Reformed2010

Original post by SeaPony

Reality?

So if Britain was in a state of civil war and you were facing death, you would not try crossing the English channel to France. You would tell the French government, thanks for helping the British rebels by using NATO to bomb my town. But I will stay with my friends and family to die on the streets of Britain. Sure you will. Fine. Good luck with that. I would be fleeing with my damn family to safety and a chance of life.

We Europeans have a legal and moral duly to help refugees. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 22

SeaPony

Of course I would but Africa is not an Island unless you don't know geography?

So you would be willing to house refugees in your house? No thought not typical emotional. high horse. liberal.

Reply 23

Reformed2010

Original post by SeaPony

Of course I would but Africa is not an Island unless you don't know geography?

So you would be willing to house refugees in your house? No thought not typical emotional. high horse. liberal.

It is in reality. Why the hell would a refugee from Syria and Libya travel thousands of miles to the most safe, liberal and prosperous African state which is South Africa when they can cross a shorter distance to Europe via the Mediterranean sea and have an even better chance of life. Unless you expect them to go to Egypt which is a military dictatorship or Zimbabwe which has an authoritarian regime. Nigeria is under attack by extremism constantly, almost becoming a failed state. Northern African refugees are in an island of war, sex slavery, disease, torture and death. They are pressured by geopolitical realities to cross the sea and we British would be by geography.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 24

theroyalwhigs

Technically there are several states around North Africa that could serve as a refuge, especially in Middle East and most of Africa. I think it's better to limit refugees based on background (severity of problem) rather than impose a EU-wide limit, and leave limits to individual nations.

If Italy wants to accept migrants it can, but it shouldn't expect Switzerland to also accept them. Maybe EU could force Italy to issue a special 'refugee pass' that limits them to Italy until secure employment or education is found. However, considering the state of asylum in other countries, I don't think Italy should stand so high on this issue.

BTW, how many of these asylum seekers are still culturally regressive? We'll have stoning in East London at this rate.

Reply 25

gordonbennetton

Brilliant. Put the entire burden on one country. That seems fair.. If this is going to be enforced by law it has to be shared across the entire EU otherwise just send them back to whence they came.

Reply 26

Jammy Duel

We shouldn't be taking them in, we should be returning them to the godforsaken land from whence they came. Best way to some y the problem, both of them (migrants drowning and is having to put up with them)

We already have a greater refugee burden than 17 other EU nations combined. Admittedly Germany had more than twice as many as is y, bit doesn't change the fact that quite a lot of nations aren't pulling their own Weight with regards to toss issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 27

Wise 1

I see Germans burnt down a refugee camp.. good
Hope they burn it down with them inside next time.

We should force them all out. If our governments wont do nothing, then it is up to European people to take it into their own hands.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Nationality and residency

Postgraduate Master’s Loan

Postgraduate Doctoral Loan eligibility

What is an LLM and how could it benefit your career?

EU refugee quotas proposed

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you