Unstoppable migration?

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37216881



I wondering what the authorities are planning to do with those they decide are migrating for purely economic reasons. I can't imagine someone who's been dragged from the Med. being particularly happy about being 'rescued' then sent back. Poverty is of course awful but are we really going down the route of using that as a reason to offer refuge because if we are, there's countless millions more people who'll qualify and might well decide to make the same trip. At what point will it stop do you reckon?...

It shouldn't, the point is to offer sanctuary from war torn areas and provide safe haven until the situation has rectified, it's now in its 3rd year and still no solution has been found apart from abandoning search and rescue/shooting boats before they set sail which is really the last (if at all an) option and not a cure to the issue

Economic migrants should be judged separately each on its own merits, this may sound like I changed my tune on this but this is the current rules for non Eu migrants, I am still a supporter of freedom of movement inside EU

I am not sure anyone, other than a few fringe activists, thinks Europe should take economic migrants at the moment. The problem is how do you separate those with genuine claims and the economic migrants and how do you stop people getting abroad ships to come across to Europe?

Maybe a military force securing the other side of the crossings or, possibility, active operations to take down the smugglers. It's not an easy question.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not sure anyone, other than a few fringe activists, thinks Europe should take economic migrants at the moment. The problem is how do you separate those with genuine claims and the economic migrants and how do you stop people getting abroad ships to come across to Europe?

Maybe a military force securing the other side of the crossings or, possibility, active operations to take down the smugglers. It's not an easy question.

Exactly. Which is what those who opened the floodgates ought to have thought through before they did so. Of course, way back then, anyone who dared to point this out was labelled a racist. Let's be honest, it was entirely predictable for quite understandable reasons.

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

It shouldn't, the point is to offer sanctuary from war torn areas and provide safe haven until the situation has rectified, it's now in its 3rd year and still no solution has been found apart from abandoning search and rescue/shooting boats before they set sail which is really the last (if at all an) option and not a cure to the issue

Economic migrants should be judged separately each on its own merits, this may sound like I changed my tune on this but this is the current rules for non Eu migrants, I am still a supporter of freedom of movement inside EU

There are millions who would quite like to come here from sub Saharan Africa alone and separating the genuine refugees from the economic migrants is difficult if not impossible. The longer even genuine refugees are given refuge the less likely it is that they ever go back. They build lives, have kids etc. and quite understandably don't really want to go back home to a pile of rubble and some tinpot government which might be overthrown next week. A good number of Kosovans did exactly that after we were told they'd all want to go back home and rebuild their country. We have Kosovan friends who confirmed this. They came here as kids, applied for asylum, brought the rest of their family, went back home regularly for holidays etc. but decided to stay here. Having lived here for a good few years, the father died in London and his body was sent back to be buried there but they never wanted to go back to what their country had become. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why they made that choice (I'd do likewise) but in the real world we cannot give refuge to everyone who deserves it - the numbers are just too big and we're running a real risk of being swamped by desperate people who've had their hopes and expectations of a new life raised. Those who're eventually deemed illegal will fight in any way they can to resist being sent back to the poverty they thought they'd escaped from. This is quite obvious.

Originally Posted by Osem

Exactly. Which is what those who opened the floodgates ought to have thought through before they did so. Of course, way back then, anyone who dared to point this out was labelled a racist. Let's be honest, it was entirely predictable for quite understandable reasons.

People are streaming in before that though. Merkel's comments about welcoming migrants was after that. The wars in Syria and Libya were the start of this.

An easy way to tell economic and genuinely in danger is the in danger one's are happy once they reach safety while the economic try to move further into western europe not very hard is it.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

People are streaming in before that though. Merkel's comments about welcoming migrants was after that. The wars in Syria and Libya were the start of this.

Yes I know that. I was referring to Bliar opening our floodgates to economic migrants from much poorer parts or Europe.

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

An easy way to tell economic and genuinely in danger is the in danger one's are happy once they reach safety while the economic try to move further into western europe not very hard is it.

Easy for the likes of us to tell, not so easy in law it seems. The thousands holed up in Calais are evidence of that.

The immigration crisis is the result of stupid politicians more interested in social experimentation then just doing what they are elected to do and europe as a whole is going to be paying for it in many ways for a good couple of decades.

[Taf]

It was reported today that people in stable and seaworthy boats jumped into the sea.

This is because they have been told that anyone in a sinking ship, or in the water, is legally obliged to be "saved" by passing ships.

This is why these ships are scuppered close to shore.

And this is what they have been doing for years and years and years.

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 ----------

BBC footage showed a guy whipping someone on the boat as rescuers arrived. What was that about?

Originally Posted by Taf

It was reported today that people in stable and seaworthy boats jumped into the sea.

This is because they have been told that anyone in a sinking ship, or in the water, is legally obliged to be "saved" by passing ships.

This is why these ships are scuppered close to shore.

And this is what they have been doing for years and years and years.

The boats are generally very poor quality anyway and, if near the African coastline, they're intentionally scuppered by the authorities in case they float back into the smugglers' hands.

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by Taf

It was reported today that people in stable and seaworthy boats jumped into the sea.

This is because they have been told that anyone in a sinking ship, or in the water, is legally obliged to be "saved" by passing ships.

This is why these ships are scuppered close to shore.

And this is what they have been doing for years and years and years.

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 ----------

BBC footage showed a guy whipping someone on the boat as rescuers arrived. What was that about?

Not sure it's anything legal as its international waters, it's more about humane thing todo rather than watch them drown

[Taf]

Merchant ships are legally bound to rescue those in need, under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Stopping to help those in distress is also seen, as the IMO says, as "a longstanding maritime tradition" as well as a moral obligation on the ship's master.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32387439

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

Not sure it's anything legal as its international waters, it's more about humane thing todo rather than watch them drown

Yes it is the more humane thing to do but at what point does the humane thing we do become the draw factor which causes increasing numbers of desperate people to take their chances?

Like it or not we all have limits to our generosity and most people's might be making a few charity donations and posting a few messages in places like this from time to time. What prevents us doing more? Giving more? Let's face it most of us aren't living in abject poverty and could quite easily give and do more for charities which support poverty stricken people in places like Africa so why don't we? Why don't we do more to stop these people trekking thousands of miles to get in leaky boats, that'd be the really humane thing to do wouldn't it?

The reason 99% of the population don't go down that route is that whilst they have sympathy for the plight of refugees and migrants, that sympathy only goes so far and is usually limited to supporting measures which cost us little and won't directly affect us. So on the one hand people like to make a lot of noise about refugees and migrants but, when push comes to shove, there's almost always little else forthcoming and God forbid HMG wants to open a hostel for refugees and migrants anywhere near them...

If we're going to be humane and drag people out of the sea, why not do the logical thing and just assist them all to come here in the first place? As many as want to come because they're all desperate and all have a case for a better life so if we don't bring them all the trek to Libya will continue. No, we should send large ships and/or planes to the places these people, load them up and bring them here. That'd save so many more lives wouldn't it so why aren't any of us suggesting our govts. do just that? I submit it's because we quite like making ourselves feel a bit better through the odd charity donation but don't really want our way of life and living standards to be significantly impinged upon. We're quite prepared to be shocked by images of bodies in the surf but we're not prepared to intervene directly. The very same reason we may offer a tramp some food or money from time to time but don't invite him to stay in our spare bedroom or even a tent in our garden.

The sad fact is that either we change our approach to this problem or we're going to get swamped to the point that increasing civil unrest will ensue just like it already is in those places worst affected by the existing migrant/refugee problem. If that sounds tough well it is because at the end of the day that's what people do - they defend themselves, their loved ones, their homes and their way of life. It's all very well people like Merkel welcoming migrants but did she ask her people first? Did she concern herself with what they thought? She opened the gates and, surprise surprise, the people came and kept coming. They kept coming through other people's countries causing them huge problems in the process and stirring up a whole lot of tension and unrest. Now they are here in vast numbers and realising that life isn't anything like what they'd hoped. They're realising that most of them will probably have to struggle for many years and a good number may well be asked to return to the places they so desperately left. Is that humane? Maybe for you it is but how are the migrants who gambled everything for that better life in the EU going to see it? How do you think they'll react? How on Earth are the powers that be going to manage the massive problem they have created and have done precious little to solve?

IMHO this is analogous to those situations in the past when at the scene of disasters, rescue ships have had to turn back for fear of being overloaded. A most awful scenario we'll all agree but unless we do something to stop the huge flow of migrants at source and persuade these people there is no easy life just the other side of the Med, tough measures are going to be inevitable.

That won't be the end of the problem, however, because the millions of migrants and refugees who've already made it here will still have to be accommodated and successfully integrated. Despite all the fine words of the out of touch Eurocrats, very few countries, especially the poorer nations, are going to take them so how are we going to stop the creation of the sort of migrant 'ghettos' which have already made Brussels, for example, a dangerous place and hotbed for terrorism?...

[Osem]

Campaigners say they have identified almost 400 refugee children living in the so-called Jungle camp in Calais who are eligible to come to the UK.
They have urged Home Secretary Amber Rudd to accept the children - many of whom reportedly have family in Britain.
The list is to be handed in at the Home Office, on the anniversary of the drowning of three-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi one year ago.
The Home Office says it already plans to transfer 150 children this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37249847

I wonder what sort of additional provision is going to be necessary to deal with those who have been badly traumatised by war, torture, etc. Let's face it, the mentally ill have been getting a pretty raw deal in the UK for years and we have male suicides at record levels and the single largest killer of young men in the UK. If these are truly the most vulnerable, then a good many are going to have been badly scarred by events and need a great deal of support.

Meanwhile, try getting help for your very own young adult with mental health issues...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36536297

Still I'm sure the great and the good will do their utmost to ensure there are adequate resources for all those in need as opposed to those who are in the news.

[nomadking]

Wasn't the family of Alan Kurdi living in Turkey for 2 years with a house and job? THEY WERE SAFE AND SETTLED. They wanted to go to Canada, but Canada said no. They were trying to get to Canada via the "back door",

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't the family of Alan Kurdi living in Turkey for 2 years with a house and job? THEY WERE SAFE AND SETTLED. They wanted to go to Canada, but Canada said no. They were trying to get to Canada via the "back door",

Being safe clearly isn't what it was. The thousands in Calais are perfectly safe except from themselves. It's their choice to refuse to claim asylum in France (or any of the safe countries they passed through to get there) and live in squalor so I therefore have very little sympathy for the adults amongst them who're effectively trying to 'force' their way into the UK by hook or by crook. My belief is that the minors there are effectively being used as emotional pawns and if we give in to that more children will go the same way.