Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 18:01:06 GMT
Good swerve..  It's not a swerve. We can't be expected to take them all but we have a responsibility under treaties we have signed to provide asylum to our fair share. Yes, but these are made by short-term idiots (politicians) who have not thought anything through in the long-term. There comes a time when their damaging virtue signalling has to be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 12, 2023 18:04:25 GMT
You see them like sweets being handed out? With our institutions at breaking point, housing and cost of living going through the roof, our population intentionally fattened up to the point we're one of the most densly populated countries on Earth, I think these good feelies need to be put in their place and face the reality that the current trend is clearly insane. While this insanity continues the UK will always be known as the dumping ground. We should be pressuring neighbouring countries to do their bit. Neighbouring countries like Turkey (3.6 million), Lebanon (830K), Jordan (675k), Iraq (250k)? The UK has hosted 12k, just above Cyprus. www.statista.com/statistics/740233/major-syrian-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 18:17:03 GMT
You see them like sweets being handed out? With our institutions at breaking point, housing and cost of living going through the roof, our population intentionally fattened up to the point we're one of the most densly populated countries on Earth, I think these good feelies need to be put in their place and face the reality that the current trend is clearly insane. While this insanity continues the UK will always be known as the dumping ground. We should be pressuring neighbouring countries to do their bit. Neighbouring countries like Turkey (3.6 million), Lebanon (830K), Jordan (675k), Iraq (250k)? The UK has hosted 12k, just above Cyprus. www.statista.com/statistics/740233/major-syrian-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/One statistic. Meanwhile we're taking asylum seekers from Ukraine and the government are trying to make it even easier for them to apply. We have taken a lot more than France, who stick them on boats and send people from all over (illegals or otherwise) to the UK without a care for anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 12, 2023 18:55:34 GMT
They should stay in Greece on one of the outer islands until such time as it is deemed safe for them to return to Kurdistan. There is no compulsion on any state which may provide temporary sanctuary to provide them with 'a better life' or make any special effort to integrate them into the host population. And what about morally? Are we really as bad as you make out? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 12, 2023 18:56:04 GMT
We've taken a lot more what than France?
Are you referring specifically to Ukrainians here?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 12, 2023 18:59:55 GMT
It depends whether you put the interests of the host society above those of supplicants. For me, the former weigh heavier in the balance even if only because of the need for population control and to maintain cultural hegemony. Where does that stop? Can I refute my need to pay to police Northern Ireland when it is of no gain to me. Or even help Sunderland when you live in London. Maybe not help the disabled as there is no compunction to do so? All of these things are man made constructions just as your claim that we owe nothing to those in the world outside our country. Yet these are the very things that define us as humans. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 12, 2023 19:01:49 GMT
This is the Mind Zone. I understand this is the area where sensible debate is encouraged. Lets see if we can achieve that with the emotive subject of asylum. Asylum seekers come in many different guises. Some clearly have genuine reasons for fleeing their home country, some are simply seeking a better life but are quite safe at home, for some its more nuanced. I think we all would agree that those simply seeking a better life can not be accommodated. There is more debate about those that do have a valid reason for fleeing. So lets focus on them. Haval and Asmira are both 25. They are in law Syrian but are ethnically Kurdish. There is a war going on in their home area as Turkey and Syria fight over their home area. Bombs regularly fall and rule of law is weak. Their two year old child and both sets of parents have been killed in the conflict and their home badly damaged. They decide to flee with their remaining baby son. The route out is through Turkey (but Syrian Kurds are not safe there) and on to Greece. They have arrived by irregular means in Athens. Asmira has suffered sexual abuse en route and Haval has been beaten up. Haval has a brother living legally in Germany who has offered to help him. He and Asmira speak fluent English but speak no other non-Kurdish language. They believe they would have the best chance of rebuilding their lives in the UK. Lets assume Greece would be considered a "safe" country. Under pretty much any jurisdiction, this family would be entitled to be granted asylum. So what should happen now? the UNHCR treaty that britain signed decades before there was an EEC called for refugees from conflict to be given refuge in countries nearest the conflict for the duration of such after which they should be returned to their country of origin I see no good reason to deflect from that. The sheer number of refugees overwhelming the countries nearest the conflict and the luck of some countries who are not aligned to such conflict? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 12, 2023 19:04:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 12, 2023 19:07:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 19:23:34 GMT
We've taken a lot more what than France? Are you referring specifically to Ukrainians here? Zanygame has decided to answer this on my behalf incorrectly. I could leave you guessing, but according to the stats the UK has taken almost double than France from Ukraine. As for who France is sending over then I would highly doubt that they're from Ukraine (if going by the pictures), although some may well be.
P.S. if you had quoted me then the notification would have probably been triggered. EDIT: 'likes' trigger it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 12, 2023 19:32:59 GMT
Thank you for your reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 19:52:40 GMT
They should stay in Greece on one of the outer islands until such time as it is deemed safe for them to return to Kurdistan. There is no compulsion on any state which may provide temporary sanctuary to provide them with 'a better life' or make any special effort to integrate them into the host population. And what about morally? Are we really as bad as you make out? Morality is a very fungible commodity, it can take on different characteristics both temporally and spatially.
In simpler terms, what is considered as moral here may not be moral there, and what was moral then may very well not be moral now.
There is no universal morality nor any workshop manual to instruct us on how such a thing might be applied, if it could be shown to exist.
What you are asking is whether it is moral to place the interests of an existing population above that of others who might aspire to share their living space, to which I would respond: why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 12, 2023 19:56:01 GMT
the UNHCR treaty that britain signed decades before there was an EEC called for refugees from conflict to be given refuge in countries nearest the conflict for the duration of such after which they should be returned to their country of origin I see no good reason to deflect from that. The sheer number of refugees overwhelming the countries nearest the conflict and the luck of some countries who are not aligned to such conflict? Well sometimes you are lucky and sometimes you are not. In WW1 from Belgium alone we had 250,000 refugees in the space of a few months. Some went to France but very few other countries took any. In WW2 the UK had close on 100,000 refugees during the 30s and had exiled armies and governments as well as many thousands of refugees from the Continent during the early 40s. We were overwhelmed to the detriment of all our citizens. Fair shares for others to help was next to nothing apart from the US and some commonwealth countries. Now we are thousands of miles away and we have to take a 'fair share'. In the 30s and 40s most displaced Jews wanted to go to Palestine but the Arabs opposed that move at every turn. We have done our bit time and again. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 12, 2023 19:59:16 GMT
It depends whether you put the interests of the host society above those of supplicants. For me, the former weigh heavier in the balance even if only because of the need for population control and to maintain cultural hegemony. Where does that stop? Can I refute my need to pay to police Northern Ireland when it is of no gain to me. Or even help Sunderland when you live in London. Maybe not help the disabled as there is no compunction to do so? All of these things are man made constructions just as your claim that we owe nothing to those in the world outside our country. Yet these are the very things that define us as humans. It's well established that East Asians, amongst others, go to great lengths to exclude would-be claimants from outside their societies who aspire to share their living space. I recall reading recently that the Japanese, for example, reject over 99% of asylum claims.
Does that mean that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese et al do not qualify as human beings?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 12, 2023 20:18:39 GMT
The sheer number of refugees overwhelming the countries nearest the conflict and the luck of some countries who are not aligned to such conflict? Well sometimes you are lucky and sometimes you are not. In WW1 from Belgium alone we had 250,000 refugees in the space of a few months. Some went to France but very few other countries took any. In WW2 the UK had close on 100,000 refugees during the 30s and had exiled armies and governments as well as many thousands of refugees from the Continent during the early 40s. We were overwhelmed to the detriment of all our citizens. Fair shares for others to help was next to nothing apart from the US and some commonwealth countries. Now we are thousands of miles away and we have to take a 'fair share'. In the 30s and 40s most displaced Jews wanted to go to Palestine but the Arabs opposed that move at every turn. We have done our bit time and again. so if all these people came to us, what happened when the war ended. Genuine question because i’ve no idea |
|
