Should Muslim Countries take more responsibility for migrants?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

A few million? Like two million only?

A costing would have to be done to be precise.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

So again for the nth time what do you propose? How much would it cost to fix all these 'problems' as you put it.

Hang on there now a second.

This whole thread you've been banging on about the terrific treatment that asylum seekers receive in the West, relative to elsewhere. When it is pointed out to you that it’s often not all that spectacular at all, you immediately shift the goal-posts and ask how much it would cost to provide the level of provision that you’ve been claiming already exists?

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Hang on there now a second.

This whole thread you've been banging on about the terrific treatment that asylum seekers receive in the West, relative to elsewhere. When it is pointed out to you that it’s often not all that spectacular at all, you immediately shift the goal-posts and ask how much it would cost to provide the level of provision that you’ve been claiming already exists?

Where did I say it was 'terrific'? Can you quote me?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Where did I say it was 'terrific'? Can you quote me?

It's certainly not "terrific"

"Fears for the safety of many children of asylum-seekers living in direct provision have been flagged in an official report to be published shortly.
Child protection and welfare concerns were raised about approximately one in seven of 1,600 children living in direct provision in the year up to last August, according to a report by the standards body Hiqa, the Health Information and Quality Authority.
This represents 14 per cent of the children living in the asylum-seeker system. The comparable figure for welfare referrals in the child population generally is 1.6 per cent."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/safety-of-children-in-direct-provision-flagged-by-report-1.2221587

jank

Nodin wrote: »

A costing would have to be done to be precise.

So, in other words you have no idea.

We could double the budget but it may not have any affect, nor would it be enough. Case in point we tripled the health budget over the past 15 years. Do we have a 300% better health service? Are people happy? I think not.

Sure, we could always aspire to improve things but airy, fairy generalist and populist slogans and statements like 'give them the best possible treatment' are just that. You do not have any concrete or costed methods you would like to share, only complaints and moaning akin to a Joe Duffy phone in.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It's certainly not "terrific"

Again, where did I specifically say it was 'terrific'? If you can quote me on it, I will give you 100 euro.

Another one liner, coming right up.

SeanW

wes wrote: »

A lot of these countries have been flooded with refugees. For example there are something like half a million Syrian refugees in Jordan.

Jordan, AFAIK, is the only country that has made any real effort to take in and assimilate Palestinian refugees. The Arab world stretches from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the border with Iran, it really is incomprehensible that this is still a problem.

One question comes to mind though, after the '67 war, and others, why were the Palestinian refugees not taken under the care of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So, in other words you have no idea.

We could double the budget but it may not have any affect, nor would it be enough. Case in point we tripled the health budget over the past 15 years. Do we have a 300% better health service? Are people happy? I think not.

Sure, we could always aspire to improve things but airy, fairy generalist and populist slogans and statements like 'give them the best possible treatment' are just that. You do not have any concrete or costed methods you would like to share, only complaints and moaning akin to a Joe Duffy phone in.

So now you're waffling, because I've shown that there are deficiencies that have to be addressed, regardless of cost. You of course can argue that we shouldn't spend money to protect children, and good luck with it.

Dannyboy83

djpbarry wrote: »

Hang on there now a second.

This whole thread you've been banging on about the terrific treatment that asylum seekers receive in the West, relative to elsewhere. When it is pointed out to you that it’s often not all that spectacular at all, you immediately shift the goal-posts and ask how much it would cost to provide the level of provision that you’ve been claiming already exists?

Ridiculous comment.

You spent half the thread banging on about some conspiracy theory about how the British want to renew the empire so any humanitarian efforts don't count.

It was already put to him that the refugees should have 5 star treatment and when he asked how you would convince the taxpayer of that, no answers were given.

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

So now you're waffling, because I've shown that there are deficiencies that have to be addressed, regardless of cost. You of course can argue that we shouldn't spend money to protect children, and good luck with it.

But he didn't.
He asked the opposite actually.
How do you plan to convince the taxpayer to spend more money to protect those children?

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But he didn't.
He asked the opposite actually.
How do you plan to convince the taxpayer to spend more money to protect those children?

It doesn't require a vote. Nor should it.

rgossip30

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Increase-for-a-Qualified-Adult.aspx#part5

Asylum seekers can live outside direct provision and get an adult dependence allowance .
There are many former asylum seekers that bring in relatives this way. What a pull factor.
I should get a house boy to look after my house when I am out of the country.
Those that want to help unfortunate asylum seekers should do the same instead of being PC ranters.

johnnyskeleton

jank wrote: »

Another one liner, coming right up.

MOD: Please keep it civil Jank

jank

Nodin wrote: »

So now you're waffling, because I've shown that there are deficiencies that have to be addressed, regardless of cost. You of course can argue that we shouldn't spend money to protect children, and good luck with it.

Well of course you ignore my last question. I take it that you were lying then about my comment regarding the 'terrific' Irish migration system. Not the first time either you would have done that.

On the point above, Well really, what can I say. I think you have lost all credibility at this stage, what little you had. I have asked umpteen times regarding real solutions and real costs. You do not have a clue what these are, instead link to a report scream, "Think of the children!"

The best you can come up with is airy fairy populist nonsense and as someone who does not fall for such claptrap that makes me akin to a chip abuser.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It doesn't require a vote. Nor should it.

The budget (or finance bill) actually does require a vote in the dail every year. One is free to lobby the government asking them for extra funds.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Well of (.................) a chip abuser.

It wasn't me who made the original comment re "terrific".

The plain fact of the matter is you claimed that there was nothing wrong with the asylum system save speed of processing (which you blamed on the asylum seekers themselves). When I showed this to be incorrect, you ignored the point, and went on to try to shift the goal posts towards the cost etc.

Jank wrote:

The budget (or finance bill) actually does require a vote in the dail every year. One is free to lobby the government asking them for extra funds

The post I was referring to clearly referred to the public -

"How do you plan to convince the taxpayer to spend more money to protect those children? "

KingBrian2

Many people are unfamiliar with that region of the world's history. The Syrian government has been interfered with by outside powers throughout the Cold War. Along comes an actual Syrian administration and the US again opts to support a coup d'état. Look no further than an article is this paper to see why.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/suicide-bomber-kills-21-at-saudi-shia-mosque-1.2222739

The evidence is there for anyone to see Saudi backed extremists being provided resources on the Syrian Turkish border.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It wasn't me who made the original comment re "terrific".

The plain fact of the matter is you claimed that there was nothing wrong with the asylum system save speed of processing (which you blamed on the asylum seekers themselves). When I showed this to be incorrect, you ignored the point, and went on to try to shift the goal posts towards the cost etc.

Putting words in my mouth again? Again, quote me on where I specifically said there was 'nothing wrong' with the Irish Asylum system.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth again? Again, quote me on where I specifically said there was 'nothing wrong' with the Irish Asylum system.

You stated the only problem was lack of speedy process
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95556054&postcount=147

jank

Nodin wrote: »

You stated the only problem was lack of speedy process
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95556054&postcount=147

Nope, that is not what I said either, its there in black and white. Perhaps you should read my actual words rather than something else you would have liked me to say.

So, how are those budget proposals coming along....?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Nope, that is not what I said either, its there in black and white. .............

That it is.

"Don't they have all these things bar a speedy process?"

jank wrote: »

So, how are those budget proposals coming along....?

The budget proposals for what, according to you, was already in place? I'm afraid I don't have access to the Government departments costing accountants.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

That it is.

"Don't they have all these things bar a speedy process?"

You mentioned three things. As far as I am aware 3 != 'everything else'

The budget proposals for what

To fix up whatever you think is wrong with the current system. You mention a 'few million' when pushed into a corner, which demonstrates how little you know about costings.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Where did I say it was 'terrific'? Can you quote me?

Reduced to arguing semantics now, are we? I said terrific relative to elsewhere, which is essentially what you said earlier in the thread:

jank wrote: »

All in all the West treats immigrants much much better then the rest of the world.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

You spent half the thread banging on about some conspiracy theory about how the British want to renew the empire so any humanitarian efforts don't count.

I said nothing of the sort.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It was already put to him that the refugees should have 5 star treatment…

No, that’s a straw man jank came up with.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Reduced to arguing semantics now, are we? I said terrific relative to elsewhere, which is essentially what you said earlier in the thread:

In what world does "The west treats migrants better then the result of the world" (something no one has actually argued) means that it's 'terrific'

That is an adjective solely introduced by you in an effort to put words in my mouth. You may call it mere semantics, I call it deliberately misrepresenting what I said, without again arguing the basic point that its basically true.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort.
No, that’s a straw man jank came up with.

Nope, that is what Nodin came out with. 'The best possible treatment' without actually quantifying what 'best possible' is. When asked to quantify, the silence is both deafening and illustrating to how hollow the basic argument is. Populist airy fairy nonsense to be fair.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

In what world does "The west treats migrants better then the result of the world" (something no one has actually argued) means that it's 'terrific'

You didn’t say “better”. You said “much, much better”. It’s not unreasonable to therefore conclude that you’re of the opinion that the treatment received by asylum seekers in the The West is “terrific”, relative to what they would receive elsewhere.

jank wrote: »

That is an adjective solely introduced by you in an effort to put words in my mouth. You may call it mere semantics, I call it deliberately misrepresenting what I said, without again arguing the basic point that its basically true.

I’m not convinced that it is basically true – that’s kind of the point.

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

The plain fact of the matter is you claimed that there was nothing wrong with the asylum system save speed of processing (which you blamed on the asylum seekers themselves). When I showed this to be incorrect, you ignored the point, and went on to try to shift the goal posts towards the cost etc.

Your goal was 'That they be offered the highest standards possible, in food, accommodation etc'
Addressing 'cost' is not a shifting of goal posts, especially not in that context.

It's not that it would not be a noble goal, but it's not clear that it is the more ethical course of action.
i.e.
Should the state rescue 1000 people and provide the highest standard of food and accommodation for €10 million, or should they have a lesser standard but potentially rescue twice as many people with the same budget?

The populist reply would be, spend €20 million & save 2000 and give them all the highest standard... but in that case why not reduce the standard and save 4000 people for €20 million?

Getting the thread back on track and addressing the Muslim countries rather than the Occidental, perhaps the state should donate the money to a neighbouring country adjacent to whichever country the refugees are fleeing, where it could potentially go much farther in saving lives? Or is corruption too much of a barrier?

Would these donations actually make a difference?
I wasn't aware that Palestinians don't have legal rights in any Arab countries, nor was I aware until recently that the Arab countries & Saudi Arabia in particular, have the worst modern day record for human trafficking & slavery.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

You didn’t say “better”. You said “much, much better”. It’s not unreasonable to therefore conclude that you’re of the opinion that the treatment received by asylum seekers in the The West is “terrific”, relative to what they would receive elsewhere.

That is your conclusion but as you conceded I have not used that word, you have interpreted what I said. That is your issue, not mine.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not convinced that it is basically true – that’s kind of the point.

Your not convinced yet offer no alternative view point, reasoning or proof of the claim. Well for a start the West are not burying migrants in random mass graves in the middle of the jungle, so tell me where in the world are migrants treated better then the West? Do tell!

al22

Earlier or later the planet is overpopulated and we all will need to move somewhere to live in the future.