If someone wanted to enter house, take belongings Should you be forced to let in?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

Lovely... you know what makes me laugh about that attitude? It proves to me that I am on the right track, because the more folk coming here from elsewhere, the smaller the percentage of cold hearted nationalists per capita, and that pleases me no matter who turns up, or where they arrive from.

Thanks for providing an example which illustrates my original points so well !!

Well considering they arent coming to my country how is it nationalist? I have the attitude Im sick of helping people who dont appreciate it at all. Those people will not appreciate the help. SO sure burden another countrys people and wreck their economy all because it makes you feel better. its wrong to force them onto a population who dont want them.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Any point you are actually trying to make there?
This is a discussion about mass migration with people attempting to choose their safe nation to claim asylum in.
NHS doctors = irrelevant
EU migration = irrelevant
Number of Brits abroad = irrelevant

This thread is about potentially millions of people who speak English as a second language wishing to choose the safe nation they claim asylum in. By default if they make it to the EU then their only option is the UK.
Are you advocating that the UK should unilaterally allow asylum claims from people already in safe nations?

I am advocating that if international conventions on claiming asylum are changed to allow choice, then every other English speaking nation must agree before we open the doors to the UK.
If you disagree then I'd say you cannot think logically. It would be a disater for the UK and you know it.
But keep posting unsourced facebook style info-pics if that's all you actually have, I'll ignore them in future.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Egypt were the Muslim brotherhood voted into power by the masses including most moderate people is an example.
When a Islamic Leader takes control of a country and is accepted as such then everyone falls into line so if leadership change happens to allow the caliphate then even moderates would go along with it.

a reply to: grainofsand stop reading the fear monger press, they paint a picture much worse than the reality

a reply to: yuppa

Their governments were th eproblem.

Who established those governments?

Hint - We did.

they could had changed their own governments before they were attacked.

No...cause we openly supported those dictators and governments, until it was far too late because we had already decided to go to war.

SO yes it IS their fault their country got hit. Because they didnt have the personal responsibility to fix it. Youre still being played and are doing exactly what they want you to do.

No, I'm not.

What you fail to understand is that in Afghanistan in the 70's, women were walking around in pencil skirts, going to school becoming doctors and lawyers. WE bombed the nation into nothing, the power vacuum we left was filled by extremists and there was nobody left to fight them, because we killed all the men and boys.

Then we instilled puppet dictators, and the cycle repeats itself, every time one of those dictators decides he's not going to take sh.t from NATO anymore.

How is that hard for you to understand?

Its' cause and effect. We caused a giant problem, then just washed our hands of it and now you're surprised there's repercussions?

And what's more, you'd rather blame them, then take any kind of responsibility for the actions that put them there in the first place?

Do you realize how ludicrous that stance is? It literally ignores 50+ years of history and fact.

~Tenth

a reply to: crostkev

Why isn't Indonesia a caliphate, with 87% Muslim and the leader being a Muslim?

~Tenth

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: grainofsand stop reading the fear monger press, they paint a picture much worse than the reality

Oh stop being silly, I'm making a logical argument that the overwhelming majority of those potential migrants speak English as their second language. Even Charlie agreed, so if you have a situation where the UK unilaterally makes the decision to take asylum applications from people who make it to a safe country then obviously the majority will choose the UK.

Now, do you have any logical argument to counter that or just silly claims that I'm brainwashed by the press, or more irrelevant facebook style info-pics?

The day we stop offering asylum to the innocent civilians suffering in war-torn countries, is the day we might as well stop calling ourselves "human".

It never ceases to amaze how many people actually think that their own country is somehow magically immune from becoming 3rd world conditions someday too.

The possibility is always there, and you best remind yourselves of that each and every day.

Ya reply to: grainofsandyou told me last week the government has it all under control. So what you worried about?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
The day we stop offering asylum to the innocent civilians suffering in war-torn countries, is the day we might as well stop calling ourselves "human".

It never ceases to amaze how many people actually think that their own country is somehow magically immune from becoming 3rd world conditions someday too.

The possibility is always there, and you best remind yourselves of that each and every day.

Cool, so as someone in a safe English speaking country do you advocate that Canada should accept overseas asylum applications from people in safe countries?
Most of the EU seems to be advocating that the UK should open it's borders, and it is because they know that English is the second language of most of the people in Syria and Libya.

...so, do you support an agreement between all the English speaking countries to start taking asylum applications from oversea safe nations?

a reply to: crostkev

Well, given that I am part of that population they will be joining, I feel fine saying bring em in! If my rich and well to do country solved its corruption problems at the top, we could afford ten times the number of immigrants we have now. Better than allowing suffering.

There have been enough good men doing nothing, and in this day and age, it is more necessary than ever that good, kind, and compassionate people be allowed to sway the direction of policy in favour of embracing those who have been poorly done to. Otherwise, what use is all our nations resource? A rainy day fund? We can help innocent people now, we can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. We can, we should, we must.

originally posted by: crostkev
if someone wanted to enter your house, take all your belongings and even move in there. Should you be forced to let them in?

Ironic, it remembers me something.hum... 1948, anyone?

Ah! I know. Israel takes down Palestine... of course... it makes sense...

sorry, couldn't resist...

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Oh, have a reasoned argument won't you?!
It is currently under control because the UK is defending it's border.
I am here simply to counter calls for the UK to unilaterally start taking asylum claims from people in safe nations.
They overwhelmingly speak English as a second language and I say it is logical that most would choose to come to the UK if the borders were opened. Do you disagree? Got a logical argument? Or just here with silly one liners?

I am not worried so long as the UK government retains its current position. Please raise the maturity levels in your responses yeh.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So you don't advocate a position where all English speaking nations agree a shared tariff?
You want the UK to act unilaterally when the majority of these migrants speak English as a second language, really?

Are you sure you are thinking with logic here or just emotion?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: yuppa

Their governments were th eproblem.

Who established those governments?

Hint - We did.

they could had changed their own governments before they were attacked.

No...cause we openly supported those dictators and governments, until it was far too late because we had already decided to go to war.

SO yes it IS their fault their country got hit. Because they didnt have the personal responsibility to fix it. Youre still being played and are doing exactly what they want you to do.

No, I'm not.

What you fail to understand is that in Afghanistan in the 70's, women were walking around in pencil skirts, going to school becoming doctors and lawyers. WE bombed the nation into nothing, the power vacuum we left was filled by extremists and there was nobody left to fight them, because we killed all the men and boys.

Then we instilled puppet dictators, and the cycle repeats itself, every time one of those dictators decides he's not going to take sh.t from NATO anymore.

How is that hard for you to understand?

Its' cause and effect. We caused a giant problem, then just washed our hands of it and now you're surprised there's repercussions?

And what's more, you'd rather blame them, then take any kind of responsibility for the actions that put them there in the first place?

Do you realize how ludicrous that stance is? It literally ignores 50+ years of history and fact.

~Tenth

Iraq was th eonly one we established. And Ghanistan didnt even have a goverment before they troops went in. the majority are from other countries right? The past dont apply to now though and the Europeans are in no shape to take in a bunch of ungrateful people who when given the chance will stab you in the eback. France is a great example of that.
there is a reason Im on medication and its for my anti social views. YEah the world is a harsh place. SO yeah they should not count on anyone but themselves.
I dont pity them. WHy dont they do like the japanese did and rebuild their country themselves? Its not as if they were not given aid to do so. No they pre feer living off someone else instead.
Still if th ecountry they go to cannot support them they need to keep on walking.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
The day we stop offering asylum to the innocent civilians suffering in war-torn countries, is the day we might as well stop calling ourselves "human".

It never ceases to amaze how many people actually think that their own country is somehow magically immune from becoming 3rd world conditions someday too.

The possibility is always there, and you best remind yourselves of that each and every day.

maybe th egermans were onto something? just the wrong population maybe? JOKE btw.

a reply to: grainofsand
I've tried a reasoned argument with you and you told me the government had it under control, so I assumed you knew better, so I left it

a reply to: yuppa Real funny joke there yup ps. Thought you'd know better

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Why isn't Indonesia a caliphate, with 87% Muslim and the leader being a Muslim?

The reason is that leadership and world events have prevented them from as yet being able to offer that reality to them , Imagine if the UK elected a supreme religious leader and then joined a world wide network called Islam to make the caliphate happen forget the NWO this is religion we are talking about. think about it, blind faith has been best deployed by religion for a very long time

a reply to: grainofsand

You seem to be living under the false impression that Canada doesn't already offer asylum to refugees, and has been doing so for decades...

Because of our geographical location, ours arrive via the Pacific ocean in makeshift rafts.

Or do you think that only your country is the special little snowflake that gets all the escapees desperately seeking a new life for their families ?