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

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.

So there is a problem that may limit successful immigration? In this case corrupt government. I assume the corruption sucks well meaning resources.

But there is corruption , is sucking resources, probably won't end. So instead of fixing problem a to help with solving problem b , the solution is do it anyway, now you just doubled your problems and didn't solve either one?

I understand multi tasking but if there is a problem directly affecting something, in this case resources needed to account for more people. Corruption is sucking those resources. What are you really helping ? You're not. You are basically adding more people and straining a resource pool without improving the additional resources needed.

Not a good way to go, but what do I know.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
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

Oh no you haven't, come on, I've asked a few times specifically about the UK unilaterally taking asylum applications from people who mostly speak English as a second language and who are already in a safe nation.

You continually deflect. You have in no way attempted any reasoned argument with your silly one liners.
Now, that said, what is your proposal then? Do you wish for the UK to stop defending its border as it is lawfully doing at the moment?
Do you wish for the UK to act unilaterally, or would you prefer agreement of a tariff system so ALL English speaking countries start taking asylum applications from English speaking folk who have made it to safe nations?

a reply to: yuppa

The past does not apply to now?

Good Lord, that has to be the most utterly ignorant thing I have EVER read on this site. Do you realise that pretty much every event of historical significance very much applies to the here and now!? Everything from the invention of the wheel, the Crusades, the discovery of scientific astronomy, of electric power, every single notable event in history has relevance today, and many of the most important have to do with how one does, and how one does not treat people.

It is not in the least accurate that my nations actions in India and Africa over the decades previous to now, have no relevance today. We scored boatloads of Gold, precious stones, and other mineral resources, and our western companies are STILL taking advantage of minerals mined in conflicted regions, mined by slave labour, under the yoke of oppressive regimes, which cost less than the same resources would if mined properly by people in a developed nation. We have learned nothing from history, and people like you just allow the ignorance to pile up, unchecked and un-dealt with, and because of that apathetic, ignorant, totally vacuous approach to history and world affairs, being taken up by huge numbers of dunderheads all over the world, things never get better for anyone.

Well played. Entropy wins, because no one wants to loose something that they can afford, to help someone who has nothing. Bloody lovely.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

We should not let the fact that our government have not learned their place alter the moral path of our international and internal policy. We must force them to behave correctly, because unlike those in developing nations, we in the developed world have mechanisms to do so, called voting.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
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 ?

Nope, all of that is your invention alone, and cut the silliness with the special snowflake lameness, it appears you do not wish to debate logically either, pity.
This current situation is potentially millions of people, the majority of which speak English, so if you are advocating that the UK should start taking asylum applications from safe overseas countries then I say the same applies to Canada.

Cut the emotion yeh, I'm discussing rationally and impartially. The vast majority of these folk wish to live in English speaking nations so if you are saying the UK should start taking these applications then I am reasonably arguing that so should the US, Australia, New Zealand...

If we were talking a few hundred thousand people then fair enough, but this could be an exodus of millions of English speaking folk and it is bigger than any single English speaking nation to tackle by itself. Especially one as small as the UK.

Oh, and by the way, don't just criticise the UK, the government of the Republic of Ireland has exactly the same stance, and being part of the open border Schengen agreement in the EU they are just glad the UK never signed up so our protected border also protects Ireland.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We should not let the fact that our government have not learned their place alter the moral path of our international and internal policy. We must force them to behave correctly, because unlike those in developing nations, we in the developed world have mechanisms to do so, called voting.

But if you do not do something to increase required resources to account for an influx of people, you strain limits, create anger,put yourself in a position where you cannot have an emergency, and eventually collapse all.

The moral argument sounds great, feels great. But the reality of limited resources has to take priority or everyone becomes worse off. In this case corruption sucking resources that could accommodate more people is a pretty big deal. Sorry if it doesn't feel right or sound moral but if resource limits aren't addressed then everyone will be worse off. That's just logical. You don't help if everyone hurts, if resource limits are not addressed, everyone will. No moral sppeches change that or matter if reality isn't dealt with

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: yuppa

The past does not apply to now?

Good Lord, that has to be the most utterly ignorant thing I have EVER read on this site. Do you realise that pretty much every event of historical significance very much applies to the here and now!? Everything from the invention of the wheel, the Crusades, the discovery of scientific astronomy, of electric power, every single notable event in history has relevance today, and many of the most important have to do with how one does, and how one does not treat people.

It is not in the least accurate that my nations actions in India and Africa over the decades previous to now, have no relevance today. We scored boatloads of Gold, precious stones, and other mineral resources, and our western companies are STILL taking advantage of minerals mined in conflicted regions, mined by slave labour, under the yoke of oppressive regimes, which cost less than the same resources would if mined properly by people in a developed nation. We have learned nothing from history, and people like you just allow the ignorance to pile up, unchecked and un-dealt with, and because of that apathetic, ignorant, totally vacuous approach to history and world affairs, being taken up by huge numbers of dunderheads all over the world, things never get better for anyone.

Well played. Entropy wins, because no one wants to loose something that they can afford, to help someone who has nothing. Bloody lovely.

No people liek me are just beyond caring about a people who will do nothing but sit on their collective tails and sponge off of others and then turn around and bite you for it. Its better to deny them entry and tell them to move on than let them in and destroy your own peoples way of life. What i mean by th epast does not matter is that th eneeds of the NATIVE people come first before your good feelings. And past INVENTIONS were not what i was talking about.
If you want to bring up the past ok.
In the past these people have Helped less radical terrorist groups in their home countries.
In th epast a number of them have taken aid and turned back around and give it to less than savory characters.
SO yes I am aware of th epast and as such they should be treated as they have treated others in the past.

a reply to: grainofsand

Do you honestly think that other allied 1st world countries would not step up to the plate and offer to help the UK in the event that these "millions" suddenly showed up at your doorstep ??

Oh ye have little faith in your friends, eh ?

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Sure they do.

A life lived along cold lines with no wiggle room for compassion is not worth living. Real life is not an equation, it is not mathematics. Real life happens in spite of, not because of the cold and lifeless systems we put in place to facilitate the running of things.

This is no different.

This is what fearmongering does.

It creates bull# rhetoric.


Many logical arguments have been discussed...

Housing projects in empty space...
Countries working together...
Dealing with top level corruption...


It's all ignored for a sound bite.

Hypothetical fear.

It's bull#.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Real life is mathematics. If a large influx of people come into an area that does not have required medical facilities, housing, water, police, food , etc. Then not only will the new people not get what they need to live,but previous people may have finishing access to all. Life is absolutely math. I see though that no amount of logic will overtake your feeling. So be it. People will suffer because of that thinking because of a lack of basic resources. Though I guess in your world simple logic, required pre planning, and ensuring an area is adequately able to do this is heartless. Enjoy

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: grainofsand

Do you honestly think that other allied 1st world countries would not step up to the plate and offer to help the UK in the event that these "millions" suddenly showed up at your doorstep ??

Oh ye have little faith in your friends, eh ?

None of them are required to under current international conventions on refugees.
They would all need to 'volunteer' assistance, so no, I have no 'faith' that any of the other English speaking nations would offer assistance without agreement at the UN.

Let's see if hundreds of thousands turn up in France while the UK continues lawfully defending its border, I'm all for providing France with resources in the mean time, perhaps if enough turn up then other countries will volunteer to take asylum applications from people in 3rd party safe countries.
Until such an offer I certainly do not advocate that the UK acts unilaterally, it requires international agreement so I support the government defending the border until such agreement cxan be found.

a reply to: yuppa

OH MY GOD!

There are no native people, it is a total fabrication that any such thing ever lived on these isles, because all the people here, have origins in other lands, from other genetic stock, BECAUSE PEOPLE CAME HERE FROM ELSEWHERE AND SETTLED MILLENNIA AGO!

You cannot hope to discuss these things properly if you are going to use terminology so outmoded and anthropologically irrelevant as "native" to describe the current population of these isles! This nation has been conquered, and inhabited by so many tribes of man over the millennia, that to call any of us native is like trying to suggest that George Bush is a Native American. What utter and total rot! What next? What shallow justification can you possibly come up with next for greed and casual hate by exclusion of your fellow man I wonder?

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I have been living in spite of mathematics, and not because of it, for most of my life. It's worked for me. It can work for everyone.

a reply to: grainofsand if you actually didn't just snub the pictures I posted you would see the UK has taken very few Syrian refugees compared to other European nations and America. This is where over a third of migrants are coming from. What do you suggest ? We sink their tiny dinggies and shoot them on site. They are running away from Isis. Should we treat them worse than Isis?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I have been living in spite of mathematics, and not because of it, for most of my life. It's worked for me. It can work for everyone.

Of course because everyone is the same and all needs are the same. Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Not to mention emergency situations. You add an influx of people and everyone has less but it works. Disaster hits wipes out half of food, medicine, etc. You just caused a lot of issues including death because proper planning did not take place. Great people survive war, famine, etc. Get to safety, then die anyway because of a lack of planning. As do people already in that area.

Guess I'm heartless. Ok

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: grainofsand if you actually didn't just snub the pictures I posted you would see the UK has taken very few Syrian refugees compared to other European nations and America. This is where over a third of migrants are coming from. What do you suggest ? We sink their tiny dinggies and shoot them on site. They are running away from Isis. Should we treat them worse than Isis?

Again more of the same appeal to emotion debate.
International conventions on refugees dictate applying for asylum in your first safe country, not one of your choosing.
The UK has less asylum seekers because it is adhering to international law and only accepting applications from people who actually make it here, like that guy who impressively walked the tunnel a week or so ago, he'll be sheltered and fed right now after making his application.

We are still able to lawfully defend the border because we did not sign up to the Schengen agreement on free EU travel. What do you want then? The UK to sign up to Schengen, or the rest of the world agreeing that asylum applications can be taken from people who have made it to a 3rd party safe nation but are wishing to choose the particular safe country they wish to claim it in?
Come on, what exactly do you want to happen? It has to be enshrined in agreements and legislation ultimately, so what's your plan?

a reply to: crostkev

The reason is that leadership and world events have prevented them from as yet being able to offer that reality to them ,

So you're saying that they all want a caliphate, but can't do it, so haven't done it?

Wow.

Thank you for characterizing 1.6 Billion Muslims, will the same hopes and dreams.

~Tenth