Immigration Crisis - Am I missing something?

Watch
MC armani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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.
7
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
The majority are economic migrants. Economic migrants want to migrate to a place where they can make the most amount of money for the least effort.

The UK unfortunately created a reputation for itself as being a soft touch. As soon as you landed in the UK, you could claim benefits and receive a house.

Things have changed a bit, but the reputation is still there.

Hence why economic migrants in France are trying to make it to the UK.
7
reply
MC armani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
The majority are economic migrants. Economic migrants want to migrate to a place where they can make the most amount of money for the least effort.

The UK unfortunately created a reputation for itself as being a soft touch. As soon as you landed in the UK, you could claim benefits and receive a house.

Things have changed a bit, but the reputation is still there.

Hence why economic migrants in France are trying to make it to the UK.
So if the majority of these migrants are regular economic migrants (and not fleeing persecution/violence out of necessity), the corollary would be to ask why it's being characterised as a 'humanitarian crisis', and why the general UK population is getting so exercised by it?
0
reply
Duncan2012
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by MC armani)
So if the majority of these migrants are regular economic migrants (and not fleeing persecution/violence out of necessity), the corollary would be to ask why it's being characterised as a 'humanitarian crisis', and why the general UK population is getting so exorcised by it?
They may well have started off as refugees fleeing Syria, but they became migrants the moment they left Turkey and paid smugglers vast sums to take them across Europe.

The public seems to be missing this point quite spectacularly, and I'm sure that anyone speaking up publicly to make it now would very quickly be labeled 'uncaring', 'racist', 'heartless' or 'extreme right'. Quite unfairly.
2
reply
MC armani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Duncan2012)
They may well have started off as refugees fleeing Syria, but they became migrants the moment they left Turkey and paid smugglers vast sums to take them across Europe.

The public seems to be missing this point quite spectacularly, and I'm sure that anyone speaking up publicly to make it now would very quickly be labeled 'uncaring', 'racist', 'heartless' or 'extreme right'. Quite unfairly.
The complete absence of any criticism of the migrants' own actions is what made me think I'd perhaps overlooked something. But perhaps it is just a case of people with opposing opinions being shamed into silence, as you say.
1
reply
BoerGenocide☺
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Explain why all the worlds migrants have to end up in Europe of all places in the world?

Why must Europeans to be made a minority in their homeland and their population destroyed by intermixing, just because you think Europe and Europe alone have to take in billions of Africans, Asians and Arabs?
5
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by MC armani)
So if the majority of these migrants are regular economic migrants (and not fleeing persecution/violence out of necessity), the corollary would be to ask why it's being characterised as a 'humanitarian crisis', and why the general UK population is getting so exercised by it?
Partly because of the left wing media, NGO's and human rights groups are all spinning this because of their pro-immigration agenda.

Also partly as someone else has stated, they may have originally been refugees as a result of war - but spending 3 years living in Turkey and then trying to make it to the UK, makes you an economic migrant.
0
reply
TimeWalker
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Where's my settlement aid from the government?
0
reply
Alaric III
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
The majority are economic migrants. Economic migrants want to migrate to a place where they can make the most amount of money for the least effort.

The UK unfortunately created a reputation for itself as being a soft touch. As soon as you landed in the UK, you could claim benefits and receive a house.

Things have changed a bit, but the reputation is still there.

Hence why economic migrants in France are trying to make it to the UK.
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.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by MC armani)
However, they undoubtedly do have the right to be accepted into these countries
They only have the right to be given asylum in the first safe country they come across, which happens to be Turkey for those coming north by land from Syria. The moment they leave Turkey's refugee camps they are economic migrants.

Another way they lose their refugee status is if they go back to Syria. I believe the father of the famously drowned little boy went back to Syria to hold funerals. This tells me that he is an economic migrant and not fleeing from persecution.

They are also deliberately frustrating the efforts of authorities seeking to help them. In Hungary they are doing all they can to frustrate efforts to help because they do no want to be registered in Hungary and then not be allowed into a richer country. Hence the stand-off on the trains.

These are clearly economic migrants.
5
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Alaric III)
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.
Of course one cannot fault their efforts to improve their own lot, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to what is essentially forced migration (on the part of the emigrees). Do you want half of Africa and the Middle east to follow suit? Because that is what will happen if we don't resist.

(Original post by Alaric III)
I think you'll find they're not
Those that have gone through Turkey or another safe country (Egypt, Lebanon etc) obviously are economic migrants. See my first post.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Alaric III)
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.
You seem to have a difficulty understand the difference between legal economic migrants and illegal economic migrants.

These are illegals.

The idealistic picture you're painting is that of legal migration, which I have no problem with.

Leftists like you may want a borderless world. Realists like me realise it's a recipe for disaster.
0
reply
Alaric III
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course one cannot fault their efforts to improve their own lot, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to what is essentially forced migration (on the part of the emigrees). Do you want half of Africa and the Middle east to follow suit? Because that is what will happen if we don't resist.
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.
1
reply
tomfailinghelp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Something pretty conspicuous which is pointed out only by Daniel Hannan, so far as I can see, is that those arguing for the absorption of refugees/migrants seem to fail to acknowledge the role of the law in processing them. We have a system for accepting refugees, and the problem is that they are trying for illegal entry. Whether we believe that accepting migrants/refugees is a good thing or bad thing, surely our first concern should be that any who do enter enter in accordance with the law?

In any case, for whatever reason they are crossing the sea, we obviously cannot incentives it because of the risks it creates, so I see no particular argument for just picking up those who cross via people smugglers.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Alaric III)
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.
So you think it cannot be stopped so we should allow it to happen? Thank goodness you aren't in government.

The real solution is to help the neighbouring countries to cope with subsidies and practical help and get the Arabs helping rather than pouring petrol onto the flames.

The British government's over-riding first duty is to its own citizens.
0
reply
Alaric III
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
You seem to have a difficulty understand the difference between legal economic migrants and illegal economic migrants.

These are illegals.

The idealistic picture you're painting is that of legal migration, which I have no problem with.

Leftists like you may want a borderless world. Realists like me realise it's a recipe for disaster.
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.
0
reply
A Realist 2015
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
LockheedSpooky it's a good job you're not a politician because you talk far too much sense. Unfortunately the doo-gooders will win just like they always do.

They should put that train into a siding and leave them there, and if they suffer on the train it would just serve them right for refusing the aid offered. Just a pity that there isn't a railway line that goes across Europe and into Africa, because then we could send the selfish people back where they came from.
0
reply
Alaric III
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Good bloke)
So you think it cannot be stopped so we should allow it to happen? Thank goodness you aren't in government.

The real solution is to help the neighbouring countries to cope with subsidies and practical help and get the Arabs helping rather than pouring petrol onto the flames.

The British government's over-riding first duty is to its own citizens.
I'm not saying that all we should do is sit back an accept everyone, I have addressed the fact that there are plenty of other aspects that need total and radical reform by the government, especially in the welfare system and foreign policy, but also economics in a previous post. It'd be nice if you read that before coming to such assumptions, because I agree that helping neighbouring countries is essential.
0
reply
tomfailinghelp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Alaric III)
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...
2
reply
Alaric III
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by A Realist 2015)
LockheedSpooky it's a good job you're not a politician because you talk far too much sense. Unfortunately the doo-gooders will win just like they always do.

They should put that train into a siding and leave them there, and if they suffer on the train it would just serve them right for refusing the aid offered. Just a pity that there isn't a railway line that goes across Europe and into Africa, because then we could send the selfish people back where they came from.

:doh:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (95)
13.81%
I'm not sure (32)
4.65%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (215)
31.25%
I have already dropped out (16)
2.33%
I'm not a current university student (330)
47.97%

Watched Threads

View All