Immigration or humanitarian crisis?

[FatLazyContractor]

On the other hand you have things like this where people tried to integrate and were refused. Though they did integrate in their protests even now you get integrated rioting in the UK.

Integrated rioting That is one activity where all 'em lot unite.

[darmstadt]

They also inherited the land mass of east germany which somehow you managed to forget. Let us not forget that even though Germany is such a paragon of virtue it has no equivalent of CUK

Not really, I was hoping that in the sentence "they also managed to assimilate a few million East Germans" most people would have taken that for granted and they do have places on the Internet where I think quite a few CUK members would feel at home (if you need links I'm sure your local loudmouthed kipper can provide you with them even though they're furrin.)

Its interesting to note that the biggest resistance to both refugees, migrants and foreigners is in fact in the old east German states where they have some of lowest migrant populations in Germany. The group Pegida, which now has UK branches if you want to join, actually started in Dresden who have bugger all migrants compared to places like Munich and Hamburg.

[darmstadt]

I wonder if she would tweet now what she tweeted in April:

[SueEllen]

Not really, I was hoping that in the sentence "they also managed to assimilate a few million East Germans" most people would have taken that for granted and they do have places on the Internet where I think quite a few CUK members would feel at home (if you need links I'm sure your local loudmouthed kipper can provide you with them even though they're furrin.)

Its interesting to note that the biggest resistance to both refugees, migrants and foreigners is in fact in the old east German states where they have some of lowest migrant populations in Germany. The group Pegida, which now has UK branches if you want to join, actually started in Dresden who have bugger all migrants compared to places like Munich and Hamburg.

You mean the parts of Germany that are dying out don't want migrants. Reminds me a bit of UK...

I was watching Channel 4 news it seems Eastern Europeans and men don't think refugees should be given help here.

[xoggoth]

Everywhere you look, whether the press, TV or CUK, there is this absurd polarisation of the issue. Migrants good, migrants bad, migrants good, migrants bad.. like a lot of f* stupid sheep.

It should not be like that! We should be ok with reasonable numbers of really useful migrants who will integrate, reject those who will be a burden or a source of future tensions or whose low contribution is more than outweighed by what they add to pressures on our resources.

On asylum, we should probably help people from Syria for the duration of the conflict, but people are justifiably concerned that the asylum process is so lax. We get too many from nations where there is no really good reason for asylum claims and, when they fail after numerous appeals that cost us a great deal of money, only a minority are removed because they deliberately destroy their documents. If we stopped being so tolerant of fraudsters and opportunists like that, I think far more of the public would be more sympathetic to those with a real case.

"Racism" is rarely as simple as hatred of a group for no reason whatever. If there is a real problem within any group we need to tackle it, otherwise resentment will grow against the group as a whole.

[Gumbo Robot]

Two conflicting articles on the reasons for this mass migration.

In this first one you have Fraser Nelson arguing that the world has never been safer & they're all coming here because people from these countries are actually better off than ever before & they now have the means to make these journeys. They're coming for the money & it's got nothing to do with war.

Then we have Piers Morgan arguing that it's everything to do with war and in particular the West's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

I think the first article is a load of bollocks. It may be true that there are fewer wars than ever before but look at the vast swathes of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia that are in the grip of Islamic terrorists. And it's no coincidence that by far the biggest group among the migrants are the Syrians - fleeing from the most extreme incarnation of this barbarism not coming to the west because they want to be better off financially.

A new experience for me. I have to agree with Piers.

Oh, and Nelson also neglects to mention that the main route into Europe that migrants are taking wasn't even a viable option until we f***d around in Libya.

[xoggoth]

A new experience for me. I have to agree with Piers.

Really? Actually the first article is rather more convincing. It's easy to look around the world today and think how terrible things are but historically there have been as many awful things happening that did not cause these migration problems. The conflicts during the fall of the Ottoman empire for example. Some are paying a lot of money to the smugglers which the really poverty stricken could not afford.

While it is true that the war in Syria has triggered a huge rise which would not otherwise be happening, many from other areas like Eritrea and other places in sub Saharan Africa are simply taking advantage of loose borders caused by the conflict in Libya. Eritreans, specifically, are coming because the Israelis have stopped taking them.

There are also problems that will drive emigration long after Assad is ousted, Islamic extremism, drought in Sub Saharan Africa, some collapsing economies in ditto that will be caused by China's woes. Migration itself is a big driver of migration. It drag down the economies they are leaving and the presence of many of their own ethnicity will inevitably make our nations more attractive and easier to enter.

[Flashman]

Two conflicting articles on the reasons for this mass migration.

In this first one you have Fraser Nelson arguing that the world has never been safer & they're all coming here because people from these countries are actually better off than ever before & they now have the means to make these journeys. They're coming for the money & it's got nothing to do with war.

Then we have Piers Morgan arguing that it's everything to do with war and in particular the West's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

I think the first article is a load of bollocks. It may be true that there are fewer wars than ever before but look at the vast swathes of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia that are in the grip of Islamic terrorists. And it's no coincidence that by far the biggest group among the migrants are the Syrians - fleeing from the most extreme incarnation of this barbarism not coming to the west because they want to be better off financially.

Actually thought Fraser Nelson made some very good points. Its a shame some of the other Daily Telegraph journalists are fuelling the liberal hysteria.

Pier Morgan?

[Flashman]

I wonder if she would tweet now what she tweeted in April:

Awww Katey upset you?

According to UNICEF

About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes. More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.

Pictures in our newspapers every day? Nah

[xoggoth]

That Piers Morgan article is pretty typical crap. Sentimental tripe.

Of course it is awful about the little boy but single incidents like that are nothing to do with the major issues. By definition people fleeing war zones are at great risk, if we agreed to take millions of Syrians, single incidents like that could still happen. Children are also dying as a result of their parents' reckless decisions to try and reach Europe when they have no good grounds for asylum but are simply economic migrants. Should we let absolutely everyone in, give them free luxury liners and airline tickets to avoid that happening?