Reply to: UKIP Vs Good Old fashioned self interest

[Mich the Tester]

so my last and serious answer?

Unfortunately we can't do anything until the Nigerian government say go (hence my poke at Oxford Princes) otherwise we will be in another far flung conflict with Muslims (yes they are nutters but they are also Muslims which the radical preachers will use to stir up unrest locally).

Yes, your serious answer. You're right, the Nigerian government have to approve, and that's obviously only right; they have other considerations as well, not least of which is trying to hold a country together that subsumed or part-subsumed several previous states with very varied cultures, rivalries and histories and which are difficult to unite. Goodluck Jonathan's government is probably the least awful government they've had in a long time and it's important that it isn't undermined. However, I think they're actually under so much pressure from their own public that they'll have to go along with a western offer of help, and indeed there are discussions going on;

Britain in talks to help rescue Nigerian schoolgirls - Telegraph

Anyway, in Mali most of the Imams supported the French intervention because they were getting a bit tired of watching the terrorists blowing up ancient mosques.

[vetran]

Oh dear. No; the Nigerian government needs help in dealing with this, but yes, that will probably involve shooting the bastards who've done this to get the girls free and to send a signal that mad fundamentalists will not be allowed to take over power in a huge chunk of Africa. The French government did a pretty good job of intervening in Mali, and they did it for precisely the reasons I stated, that a disintegration of African states would lead to a huge flow of refugees into Europe. They deserve some support, even if some of M. Hollande's other policies might seem ridiculous.

These two young fellows sum it up quite well;

so my last and serious answer?

Unfortunately we can't do anything until the Nigerian government say go (hence my poke at Oxford Princes) otherwise we will be in another far flung conflict with Muslims (yes they are nutters but they are also Muslims which the radical preachers will use to stir up unrest locally).

[Mich the Tester]

The poor girls are unfortunate enough to live in an area run by animals and to solve it we should import their captors on falsified documents so they can do it over here?

Oh dear. No; the Nigerian government needs help in dealing with this, but yes, that will probably involve shooting the bastards who've done this to get the girls free and to send a signal that mad fundamentalists will not be allowed to take over power in a huge chunk of Africa. The French government did a pretty good job of intervening in Mali, and they did it for precisely the reasons I stated, that a disintegration of African states would lead to a huge flow of refugees into Europe. They deserve some support, even if some of M. Hollande's other policies might seem ridiculous.

These two young fellows sum it up quite well;

[vetran]

Can any of you tell me how this story connects to your concerns about migration?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-fail-me.html

The poor girls are unfortunate enough to live in an area run by animals and to solve it we should import their captors on falsified documents so they can do it over here?

Or more likely it was another of our Oxford educated Princes we exported who buys BMWs with foreign Aid and keeps their population in ignorance and famine so they are not challenged?

UK bought the guns for them?

Lets hope we do give assistance and remove the scum from the gene pool.

[Mich the Tester]

Can any of you tell me how this story connects to your concerns about migration?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-fail-me.html

[Mich the Tester]

So its pointless we should just give up then?

A bit of a straw man there. No; the UK and indeed all of Europe needs to start by facing the fact that immigration won't be stopped and that the last 30 years of restrictive policies have failed. The choice is not whether to stop it, just as the choice is not whether to suspend gravity on Tuesday mornings when I usually feel a bit slow. The policies have to be directed at getting more benefits from migration for both recieving and migrating societies and at re-opening the circular migration of the past. They also have to be formed from an insight as to what drives migrants, and not from populist false promises to stop immigrants; all over Europe, moderate parties have taken over a hard line on immigration and gained votes in doing so. They have implemented policies to control migration, including ID legislation, stricter border controls, tough immigration selection, great big fences on the EU's borders, navy ships patrolling the Med, paperwork requirements for employers, making asylum centres uncomfortable places to be, paying northern African dictators to stop migrant flows (5 billion euros from Italy to Gaddaffi; that really worked ) and so on. None of these measures have stopped migration and there's not even any evidence that it's discouraged it or slowed it down.

You need to reverse the thinking; you can't stop migration so you need to work out how to enable temporary migration, how to get mutual benefits from it (for example, using migrant networks to get a European foothold in African economic growth), how to enable 'integration', and perhaps how to use migrants' knowledge and contacts to influence politics in some of the places they are leaving. Migrants' remettances are driving economic growth in several parts of Africa and succeeding where foreign aid traditionally failed. Join up the two and you have an approach to tackling the massive poverty that is one of the drivers of this.

Europe also needs to wake up to the dangers of leaving a country like Nigeria to try dealing with Boko Haram and the likes on its own, which it clearly isn't politically or militarily equipped to do. If the radicals in northern Nigeria achieve their desire of linking up by land to the Al Shabab groups to the east and the Al Qaeda groups in the Maghreb and Mali, then there will be a flow of refugees on a scale that makes today's migrant flows look like a trickle. Contrary to what some folks think, most locals there absolutely hate the radicals and are terrified by them, witnessed by French soldiers recieving standing ovations on the streets in Mali; if those bastards get power, most people will run like hell.

In other words, you need some 'joined up thinking' to tackle this, and that's what I haven't been hearing from any politicians, left, right or centre. All we get is the same old vacuous promises to stop immigration or 'manage immigration', and what people then demand when it doesn't work is stricter and stricter versions of fundamentally failed ideas.

Otherwise, yes, give up before policing the borders costs us more than we can afford and bankrupts us, as happened to the DDR when Gorbachev stopped funding the Wall.

[doodab]

So its pointless we should just give up then?

No, but we need to find a way to deal with it that actually works.

[vetran]

Indeed. Here's Europe's border in Ceuta;



And here's the Med;





Does anyone really believe that people who cross those razorwire fences or risk their lives to cross the sea in a tiny boat are going to be scared off by some treaty or some immigration procedures?

So its pointless we should just give up then?

[Mich the Tester]

Europe != the EU. Sangatte would still be there if we left the EU because the European landmass and Northern France in particular aren't going anywhere.

Europe is a route for immigration because it has roads that lead to Northern France. Northern France is part of that route because of the transport links to the UK. The channel tunnel is part of that route. The only way you'll stop people trying to come through it is to demolish it, and then they will just take the ferry instead the same as everyone else.

The route won't go away if we leave the EU. It's just delusional to think that people prepared to risk life and limb and pay dodgy criminals money to smuggle them through the channel tunnel will cease to do so because we no longer participate in some bureaucracy.

Indeed. Here's Europe's border in Ceuta;



And here's the Med;





Does anyone really believe that people who cross those razorwire fences or risk their lives to cross the sea in a tiny boat are going to be scared off by some treaty or some immigration procedures?

[doodab]

Europe != the EU. Sangatte would still be there if we left the EU because the European landmass and Northern France in particular aren't going anywhere.

Europe is a route for immigration because it has roads that lead to Northern France. Northern France is part of that route because of the transport links to the UK. The channel tunnel is part of that route. The only way you'll stop people trying to come through it is to demolish it, and then they will just take the ferry instead the same as everyone else.

The route won't go away if we leave the EU. It's just delusional to think that people prepared to risk life and limb and pay dodgy criminals money to smuggle them through the channel tunnel will cease to do so because we no longer participate in some bureaucracy.

[Mich the Tester]

You are aware of Sangatte aren't you?

BBC NEWS | UK | Q&A: Sangatte camp

Mich suggested high levels of immigration was a feeling, I replied to that without reference to the EU as the 'feeling' is obviously the same despite the route. People who lie & cheat to come here should be refused entry regardless of route of entry.

Those that governments imported for purposes of gerrymandering are not personally guilty of anything. That is the government's fault.

The EU is a significant route for immigration both legal & illegal that is very difficult to manage. Its not however the whole problem.

The EU doesn't make the slightest difference to illegal migration because there aren't any border fences within Europe. Once you've crossed the Med, you can go anywhere. Even where there are border checks, you can just walk through a field into another country. Britain's very slightly more difficult because you have to cross a sea, but the UK can't check every single truck or bus without causing significant delays to business logistics, or check every small vessel entering the country without having a coastguard even bigger than the navy. Apparently light aircraft are now being used as well; Illegal immigrants, guns and drugs 'smuggled into Britain on light aircraft' - Telegraph

How many immigration officials will you need to pay to stop all this?

[vetran]

There is a difference between integrating and becoming completely anglicised. I'd say they were pretty well integrated into the local community, it's not like my son doesn't play with Korean kids at school or go to their birthday parties and vice versa, and a lot of non koreans do Tae Kwon Do and go to the Korean restaurants and so on. But they have retained their own culture as well.

same with most of the Sikhs (who are more middle class than the English) and the Indian/African Muslims/Christians my kids play with. Birthday parties require Halal chicken nuggets & vegetarian option.

[speling bee]

And of course, it would also be better if we devised an entrance test of some sort to ensure that only the right sort of person could vote!

Vote UKIN!

That would be me.

[hyperD]

It would be better if I was in charge.

And of course, it would also be better if we devised an entrance test of some sort to ensure that only the right sort of person could vote!

Vote UKIP!

[vetran]

But they would have come through those countries to get to the UK whether the EU was there or not and whether we were in it or not, because the UK is where they want to be. Hitting out at the EU is complete red herring and won't change anything. It's mostly an accident of history (the empire, English being a global language, the UK having a successful economy with good employment prospects etc) and if it's anyone's fault then we need to blame successive UK governments.

Where I live for example has a massive Korean population, which is here because some Korean companies set up here post WW2 and consequentially lots of Korean refugees fled here during the Korean war. That was at the start of the 50s, so it's rather difficult to blame the EU for it.

You are aware of Sangatte aren't you?

BBC NEWS | UK | Q&A: Sangatte camp

Mich suggested high levels of immigration was a feeling, I replied to that without reference to the EU as the 'feeling' is obviously the same despite the route. People who lie & cheat to come here should be refused entry regardless of route of entry.

Those that governments imported for purposes of gerrymandering are not personally guilty of anything. That is the government's fault.

The EU is a significant route for immigration both legal & illegal that is very difficult to manage. Its not however the whole problem.