Irelands Mediterranean Migrant Crisis Response

A Primal Nut

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'd stand by it though. This is a better society in which to live and raise children, than the ones they are fleeing. And by miles for women.

This is a crucial point and I do I agree with you. But that's also part of the problem. Women and children suffer the most, especially because of the patriarchal society they come from. But they are the ones we aren't helping because it's too dangerous for them to make the journey. We keep hearing how brave these migrants are, but the fact is a single woman on her own or a woman with kids would find too many extra obstacles because of how they are viewed in these countries that it would be impossible for them to make the journey. As a consequence Europe is mostly helping men, who suffer the least under ISIS and and the war.

You admit yourself that these countries are bad for women, part of the reason for that is because how the men view women; these are the very men we are bringing in. Add to that the frustration when they find it hard to get a girlfriend/wife in their community because the demographics are so skewed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0905/725874-le-niamh/

The 329 people rescued comprise 317 men, 11 women and 1 child, all of whom who are receiving water, food and medical assistance.

If we had a responsible asylum strategy we would bring in a nice balance of people with a particular emphasis on the most vulnerable, instead of only the healthiest males who are fit to make the journey.

A Primal Nut

To summarise my view on this. My main problem with the pro-immigration people isn't how many people come here (although that is an issue), or that we should help vulnerable people. It's the method by which they are encouraged to come here. The pro-immigration people are doing everything they can to encourage more people to come by sea. The main problems with this are:

1) We are only helping the fittest, healthiest people, instead of the most vulnerable.
2) We are mostly helping single men as opposed to families and women, who are by far the most vulnerable. The percentage of single women making this journey is tiny, which is a shame as they are the ones I would like to help most, due to how they have suffered under ISIS and all the other regimes.
3) The journey is dangerous, so many migrants are dying.
4) The whole thing is chaotic and very difficult to manage.
5) It is impossible to vet these people.

A better alternative would be to come to the refugee camps closer to their home, vet them and decide who can come; try to arrange for good demographics. It would also be easier to see that they are genuine asylum seekers and perhaps try to help them get identification. You could also put a fixed number on it that everyone accepts as sustainable.

Anyone who comes by sea gets sent back. People say it's inevitable the migrants will come here. Look at Australia, they have completely stopped the boat journeys while still taking in a reasonable number of asylum seekers. Also, you don't see these people going to UAE, Oman or Saudi Arabia, for example. So it is not inevitable that these people will come to richer, safer countries. It's only inevitable as long as the pro-immigration people keep encouraging it.

foggy_lad

A Primal Nut wrote: »

If we had a responsible asylum strategy we would bring in a nice balance of people with a particular emphasis on the most vulnerable, instead of only the healthiest males who are fit to make the journey.

The program refugees appear to be families rather than single men but will most likely include some single men and women maybe in need of medical treatment?

KingBrian2

Europe must help the Syrians in whatever way is possible, if that means providing them accommodation and treating them with care than so shall it be. It really is remarkable that so many European heads of state have given refugee and long may this continue.

The member states have a duty to stand by the incoming peoples who are Sunni, Shi'ite & Christian. We are more than capable of looking after them. However despite all the gestures and scenes of good will the ultimate solution is to restore peace to a once vibrant society.

The Arab states are full of history and share a common religion. These Muslims are guests until such time as they safely can return to their homelands.

أتمنى لجميع السوريين ترحيبا السلمي إلى أوروبا

Macha

A Primal Nut wrote: »

To summarise my view on this. My main problem with the pro-immigration people isn't how many people come here (although that is an issue), or that we should help vulnerable people. It's the method by which they are encouraged to come here. The pro-immigration people are doing everything they can to encourage more people to come by sea.

The reason they're having to make the dangerous journey to Europe is because they aren't allowed to apply for asylum in the embassies of EU counties in Syria,Turkey, Jordan etc. They can only exercise their right to apply for asylum once they are in EU territory.

Change that and you stop the need for these terrible journeys.

JustTheOne

tonycascarino wrote: »

Enda won't man up to anything. He is gutless. If Angela said bend over Enda would do so in a heartbeat.

What political party will stand up and say no to this situation?

Galwayguy35

smurfjed wrote: »

Germany has stated that it will accept 800,000 refugees this year, thats 1% of their population, In Ireland, that would equate to about 45,000 people. Based on our present financial situation, is this number sustainable, how could we finance the required support structure?

Leaving distance, culture, religion etc out of the question, can we as a country actually afford that sort of influx?

IMO the short answer is no it isn't, let's face it none of them are going to be in a position to contribute to the economy anytime soon so their care will have to be financed by working people here.

I hope I'm wrong but the Government seem to be rushing into this by upping the numbers being admitted here based on the unfortunate death of the kid last week without think of the long term cost.

Realistically FG will be back in Government after the next election in some form or other, if they make the wrong decision on this and we take in more than we can afford the backlash from the voters on the doorsteps will make the present nightmare they are feeling about IW feel like a fairytale!

But sure Pascal Donohue told Matt Cooper the other day that we are a rich country so we have nothing to worry about it seems...

Banjo String

JustTheOne wrote: »

As I have said Sinn Fein have always been pro immigration. They want open borders.

The only party who oppose this are that anti immigration crowd but they have been attacked by groups already at their conferences.

I can't quite decide if you're anti-immigration or just anti-Sinn Fein because in this post, you're just short of weeping.

JustTheOne wrote: »

Seen that child been carried of the beach yesterday and then seen us all arguing over water charges really just makes you think how silly it is.

I don't think people realise how lucky we actually are to live in Ireland.

A lot of people take it for granted.

Moaning over the smallest of things. The sense of entitlement is sickening.

Anyway I'm sure I'll get slaughtered for this post but seen that child really brings it home.

Seriously. Not a shred of credibility left.

JustTheOne

Banjo String wrote: »

I can't quite decide if you're anti-immigration or anti-Sinn Fein because in this post, you're just short of weeping.



Seriously. Not a shred okf credibility left.

I was replying to someone saying enda is too weak to stick it up to Germany.

My point is every party is the same.

I was trying to show every party will take the same stance so it's unfair to slate fg on this issue.

Not that Sinn Fein are pro immigration and its a bad thing.

I still firmly believe we should help them out. My view of the situation changed last week.

smurfjed

Saudi Arabia actually has a very effective system of deporting people.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-deports-300-000-expats-in-5-months-586518.html

The healthy males are making the journey as they have the best chance of success, once they claim asylum, they will request permission for all their families to join them.

I'm sill waiting for one politician to offer a sustainable solution, and mob rule on the southern boarders of Europe just isn't sustainable.

Mr. teddywinkles

A Primal Nut wrote: »

This is a crucial point and I do I agree with you. But that's also part of the problem. Women and children suffer the most, especially because of the patriarchal society they come from. But they are the ones we aren't helping because it's too dangerous for them to make the journey. We keep hearing how brave these migrants are, but the fact is a single woman on her own or a woman with kids would find too many extra obstacles because of how they are viewed in these countries that it would be impossible for them to make the journey. As a consequence Europe is mostly helping men, who suffer the least under ISIS and and the war.

You admit yourself that these countries are bad for women, part of the reason for that is because how the men view women; these are the very men we are bringing in. Add to that the frustration when they find it hard to get a girlfriend/wife in their community because the demographics are so skewed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0905/725874-le-niamh/


If we had a responsible asylum strategy we would bring in a nice balance of people with a particular emphasis on the most vulnerable, instead of only the healthiest males who are fit to make the journey.

Do you think that patriarchal system will change just because they set foot in a different country. I dont

lukin

I want to post this link as I think it is a really good article.http://www.dha.com.tr/i-thought-of-my-own-son-when-i-held-baby-aylan-in-my-arms-gendarmerie-officer-_1019139.html
It's an interview with the Turkish army sergeant that was in the photograph of the Syrian boy on the beach. He put it brilliantly I think when he said "The image marks a bleeding wound" .
I hope the mods are OK with this, I don't mean to upset anyone. I was going to post it in the thread in After-hours but it's been closed.

foggy_lad

What an awful mess, but it's Austria and Germany's problem now. They should all be sent to Germany as Angela Merkel wants all migrants to build a better Germany.

Ireland should take a responsible number but not picked up off the streets, rather take those in greatest need, Families and especially those in need of urgent medical care. Ireland is known all over the world for caring for refugees and treating others with dignity, the Irish Army overseas are just about famous for it. It is only right that we continue to help others in dire need.

The current program refugee intake of 520 people between now and the end of 2016 could easily be increased to 2000 people all processed before being flown to Ireland and then add the cost of our naval involvement and an increase in foreign aid to the affected area and we are well up on doing our fair share!

It seems our own home grown Joan "Angela" Brutal is attempting to wipe the slate clean and get re-elected by making such nonsense statements as "there is no upper limit on the numbers of refugees we can take"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/no-upper-limit-on-number-of-refugees-ireland-will-take-1.2341813

A Primal Nut

It's amazing that the media is still sticking with the story that everyone coming is a genuine asylum seeker and nobody is gaming the system.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-youre-not-already-angry-about-the-migrant-crisis-heres-a-history-lesson-to-remind-you-why-you-really-should-be-10478962.html

A Primal Nut

The media coverage of this whole thing is basically propaganda; showing the images they want the world to see and ignoring the ones they don't:

1) Lots of images of a single dead kid without any context attached; other than that it's somehow Europe's fault.
2) Lots of images of families; very few pictures showing the single males.
3) No questioning of the asylum seekers lives; they are all considered genuine asylum seekers - the end! Even though very few migrants have actually talked to the journalists. The idea that some of the asylum seekers might be lying about their origins is not even considered a possibility.
4) Keep saying how we should feel guilty that people are suffering in this world and convince the reader that Europe alone can fix all these problems by opening the borders. Australia, for example are criticized for how asylum seekers are treated in Papua New Guinea; even though they actually have better lives than the locals; the insinuation is that safety from persecution is not enough; instead rich countries should take guarantee a good standard of living for every poor person around the world which obviously isn't possible.
5) Ignore the crime problems which mass immigration without proper vetting has brought in the past
6) Show how all the Europeans are welcoming the migrants, and dismissing any opposition as right-wing fringe elements - no such thing as ordinary people with genuine concerns.
7) Evoking the holocaust as if refugee camps in Turkey and gas chambers are the same thing. This is not genocide and comparing it to that is terrible journalism. The ultimate irony is due to rising antisemitism in France because of the immigration, the last jews are leaving.
8) The idea that the arrival of these people on European shores is inevitable, when in fact plenty of countries have put a stop to this by refusing to process people who arrive in this way. The Australian system is only mentioned in passing in order to criticize it, rather than to discuss it as an alternative.
9) The asylum seekers Europe has already taken in are ignored; as soon as they are in the journalists turn their pens to asking when the next batch are getting in; which is presumably a never-ending process.

ComfortKid

A Primal Nut wrote:

1) Lots of images of a single dead kid without any context attached; other than that it's somehow Europe's fault. 2) Lots of images of families; very few pictures showing the single males. 3) No questioning of the asylum seekers lives; they are all considered genuine asylum seekers - the end! Even though very few migrants have actually talked to the journalists. The idea that some of the asylum seekers might be lying about their origins is not even considered a possibility. 4) Keep saying how we should feel guilty that people are suffering in this world and convince the reader that Europe alone can fix all these problems by opening the borders. Australia, for example are criticized for how asylum seekers are treated in Papua New Guinea; even though they actually have better lives than the locals; the insinuation is that safety from persecution is not enough; instead rich countries should take good guarantee a good standard of living for every poor person around the world which obviously isn't possible. 5) Ignore the crime problems which mass immigration without proper vetting has brought in the past 6) Show how all the Europeans are welcoming the migrants, and dismissing any opposition as right-wing fringe elements - no such thing as ordinary people with genuine concerns. 7) Evoking the holocaust as if refugee camps in Turkey and gas chambers are the same thing. This is not genocide and comparing it to that is terrible journalism. The ultimate irony is due to rising antisemitism in France because of the immigration, the last jews are leaving. 8) The idea that the arrival of these people on European shores is inevitable, when in fact plenty of countries have put a stop to this by refusing to process people who arrive in this way. The Australian system is only mentioned in passing in order to criticize it, rather than to discuss it as an alternative. 9) The asylum seekers Europe has already taken in are ignored; as soon as they are in the journalists turn their pens to asking when the next batch are getting in; which is presumably a never-ending process.

Why are the media doing this though, what is their agenda? Are they being told to do it by governments?

Only last week most of the media were against taking them in. 1 image of what we already knew was happening seems to have changed everything.

A Primal Nut

Another interesting article:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/germanys-angela-merkel-hold-crisis-talks-migrants-refugees-stream-n422531

German officials have been particularly angry at Hungary for encouraging migrants to keep traveling westward, instead of providing them with adequate shelter and the chance to apply for asylum there.

This completely ignores the fact that the migrants made it perfectly clear they did not want to stay in Hungary. They even had signs saying it was worse than their homeland. But nobody in the mainstream media would dare mention that fact. There is nothing Hungary could have done differently - the bad press they and their PM get is ridiculous.

And then this:

Most Germans have been welcoming of the migrants. But far-right groups have protested their arrival, including in Dortmund overnight.

Again re-enforcing the idea that the only people who oppose open borders are fringe far-right groups something everyone knows is false. But they say it so their opinions can be easily dismissed.

A Primal Nut

ComfortKid wrote: »

Why are the media doing this though, what is their agenda? Are they being told to do it by governments?

Only last week most of the media were against taking them in. 1 image of what we already knew was happening seems to have changed everything.

Don't remember the media being against them, except for the odd article here and there. Even the right-wing Daily Mail go back and forth. Mostly the journalists are afraid of being called racist probably.

Galwayguy35

I work with Hungarians from Budapest, the pictures they showed me of the mess in the main square and the parks around the city are terrible but none of this is reported in the mainstream media, local shops are being looted as well.

Hungary is getting a lot of bad press but it's hard to blame them for taking a tough stance when things like this are going on.

ComfortKid

A Primal Nut wrote:

Again re-enforcing the idea that the only people who oppose open boarders are fringe far-right groups something no rational person could believe. But they say it so their opinions can be easily dismissed.

This has me questioning what side of the political spectrum I am in all week. I always thought I was a leftie but now all of a sudden I'm hard right.

A Primal Nut

ComfortKid wrote: »

This has me questioning what side of the political spectrum I am in all week. I always thought I was a leftie but now all of a sudden I'm hard right.

It doesn't make you hard right; just because the media say it does, doesn't make it true. For example during the cold war, capitalist governments were more supportive of immigration than communist ones, partially because it lowered wages. Not that it matters; it shouldn't a right/left issue.

ComfortKid

This sums it up..

ComfortKid

....

titan18

There'll be an election coming soon, bring up the point if any politicians come to your door that you don't agree with the immigration stance. Most likely, it'll do nothing but if they see there's a mass of Irish against bring in these people, they might actually stop it.

AlekSmart

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Comfort Kid, I would not say something if I didn't believe it was true. Have a look at some of the posts on this thread downplaying the suffering of those fleeing these conflict areas.

Fine if Foggy_lad questions the man's actions - no issue with that. What's reprehensible is his sneering at a man who has lost his children.

I'd stand by it though. This is a better society in which to live and raise children, than the ones they are fleeing. And by miles for women.

I do agree with your concerns about extremism, but how can those fleeing ISIS be the same as them?

CWK,I am on the "Opposite" side on this issue.

I am of the belief that in the recent past (30 days) some element of the EU's Political decision making process has been abandoned.

We now see Germany's Chancellor essentially assuming a position of overall decision making responsibility for this inflow.

At this point,Chancellor Merkel's decision appears to be the suspension of the existing Asylum & Refugee Infrastructure across the EU.

This incredibly basic policy-change has occurred so rapidly and without debate that few have yet had the ability to reconfigure the calculation processes which surround it,in almost every element of basic daily life in "Our" countries.

However,that being said,it is the far more specific threat of radicalization and religion inspired agitation which,I believe poses perhaps a greater short-medium term threat to European stability.

Few media outlets are now willing to refer back to earlier,and very specific,prophetic threats from the very factions currently engaged in crusade style wars across the regions from which these migrants emanate.

These articles from last JANUARY/FEBURARY could not be more focused and,given the current situation,Accurate.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/isis-operative-this-is-how-we-send-jihadis-to-europe#.pe9EYzwKW6

The ISIS operative said this method of moving fighters was important to the group because Western governments, along with Turkish authorities, have stepped up efforts to track jihadis returning from Syria, which makes plane travel from Turkey risky. The scrutiny promises to increase as Western capitals work to prevent terrorist attacks like those that struck France this month, leaving 17 dead. ISIS has more than 20,000 foreigners in its ranks, according to one recent estimate, with more than one-fifth of them citizens or residents of Western European countries. If these jihadis return to Europe in refugee ships, they can travel home via open land borders that receive far less scrutiny than airport security. The ships could also land Syrian or other Middle Eastern fighters in Europe amid the confusion of a refugee crisis that worsens by the day.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11404434

Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that Isis is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a "psychological weapon" against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya.

Many would be at risk of drowning with rescue services unable to cope. But authorities fear that if numbers on this scale arrived, European cities could witness riots.

Even more concerning is the following...

Separately, the militants hope to cement their control of Libya then cross the Mediterranean disguised as refugees, according to letters seen by Quilliam the anti-terror group, reported by the Telegraph.

Italian Minister for the Interior Angelino Alfano said on Monday that Libya was the "absolute priority" and insisted there was "not a minute to lose" for the international community.

He said: "If the militias of the Caliphate advance faster than the decisions of the international community how can we put out the fire in Libya and stem the migration flows? We are at risk of an exodus without precedent."

Then,somewhat uncomfortably for Countries such as Italy,we have the words of the "Mad Dog" himself...Col Gadaffi....

The spread of militancy across Libya was predicted by the country's deceased leader Muammar Gaddafi, who warned the Mediterranean would become "a sea of chaos".

Isis had not yet made frightening inroads into Libya when he made this chilling prophecy during his last interview in March 2011.

Whilst opinions such as these are usually slapped down as being backwards looking and repressive,it remains difficult to deny that the Script,as outlined by Gadaffi back in 2011,has been very closely followed by the very cast he named then.

Still holding court in a Bedoin tent while holed up in the fortified citadel of Bab Al Azizya, Gaddafi warned: "If, instead of a stable government that guarantees security, these militias linked to Bin Laden take control, the Africans will move en mass towards Europe."

He added: "The Mediterranean will become a sea of chaos."

That very sea ran red with blood when Islamic State brutally executed 21 Egyptian Christians on its shores.

The accompanying video, released on Sunday (local time), showed the men dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackled - kneeling in the sand before the militants slit their throats and watched them bleed to death.

It would appear that the Italian Government's role,in particular has been one of the major contributing factors in allowing the "crisis" to reach it's current level.

Something appears to gave gone VERY wrong with the EU's Policy decision making process in the specific area of Asylum & Immigration.

What concerns me,is the realization that essentially ALL future EU policy in this area,now has to be made under the duress of a managed mass and sustained attack on those systems,which has now become EU wide,rather than remaining focused upon the countries with the greatest role in destroying the checks & balances which kept some form of controlability on it.

Just pause for a moment and note how the Hungarian Prime Minister has been increasingly vilified for,essentially,attempting to maintain the primacy of existing,agreed EU A & I policies.

Hungary was'nt suggesting mass torture,imprisonment or any form of attacks on it's migrant influx.
The only issue which appeared to raise serious emotion within the migrant flow was a requirement to be registered by the Hungarian authorities.
So incensed were large numbers of suffering migrants on this particular issue,that they would throw food-and water away in preference to submitting to a registration process....That,and other well documented occurences,across the new fluid European border just does not sit right with me.

In my opinion,we (as in current Western European Society) are being sold a turkey.

JONJO THE MISER

Has any media outlet in this country took a poll of Irish people on this subject.
My guess they would be scared too, it might show up that a majority of Irish people are against open borders and taking unlimited refugees which would show up there left wing propaganda.

Mr. teddywinkles

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Has any media outlet in this country took a poll of Irish people on this subject.
My guess they would be scared too, it might show up that a majority of Irish people are against open borders and taking unlimited refugees which would show up there left wing propaganda.

Sure don't ya know they'll come here and work in all the jobs the Irish are too lazy to do don't you know.

AlekSmart

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Sure don't ya know they'll come here and work in all the jobs the Irish are too lazy to do don't you know.

Perhaps Mr.teddywinkles,perhaps...however the suddenness and scale of the current situation may well leap-frog that particular hoary ol chesnut.

The most worrying issue for me,is how few Politicians are willing to bring themselves to openly consider the possibility of the current Mediterranian Migrant situation being an integral part of a greater Campaign aimed squarely at destabilising the Western European model...?

Cold War Kid

It's a shame too that the trouble-making element (which clearly exists) is damaging the cause of genuine refugees.
Are there not benefits systems in operation in other countries besides Ireland and Britain though?

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Has any media outlet in this country took a poll of Irish people on this subject.
My guess they would be scared too, it might show up that a majority of Irish people are against open borders and taking unlimited refugees which would show up there left wing propaganda.

I'd say hardly anyone is actually in favour of open borders and taking in unlimited numbers, even people you claim are pushing an agenda in this direction. Whom have you heard of that advocates actual "open borders" and no cap whatsoever on numbers being left in?

Mongfinder General

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's a shame too that the trouble-making element (which clearly exists) is damaging the cause of genuine refugees.
Are there not benefits systems in operation in other countries besides Ireland and Britain though?

I'd say hardly anyone is actually in favour of open borders and taking in unlimited numbers, even people you claim are pushing an agenda in this direction. Whom have you heard of that advocates actual "open borders" and no cap whatsoever on numbers being left in?

Plenty of room down in Southill and Moyross.

ComfortKid

Cold War Kid wrote:

It's a shame too that the trouble-making element (which clearly exists) is damaging the cause of genuine refugees. Are there not benefits systems in operation in other countries besides Ireland and Britain though?

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html

ComfortKid

Cold War Kid wrote:

I'd say hardly anyone is actually in favour of open borders and taking in unlimited numbers, even people you claim are pushing an agenda in this direction. Whom have you heard of that advocates actual "open borders" and no cap whatsoever on numbers being left in?

I think it's more a problem of who we are letting in than how many.

The asylum laws are there for a reason.

johnty56

I'm getting a little sick of the media narrative of how we should be grateful for our 'privileged' position .. last time I checked we were an ex colony ( for far longer than any African state) too, and also suffered under imperialism and the effects ( mostly academic waffle ) of imperialism. What we have now is mostly as a result of the hard work and suffering of our parents and grandparents generation, and because we are a forward thinking people with a progressive culture.

Why should we share our childrens' legacy with people who have contributed nothing to our society, and who probably never will going by the experience of other Western countries. ( Name one single benefit that the millions of Pakistani (for example) immigrants to the UK brought)

We have Pakistani's claiming asylum here- Pakistan is a nuclear power which already receives millions in state aid from Ireland every year. We have Nigerians still coming here claiming asylum- yet experience to date has shown that many of those who have successfully 'fled' here in fear of their lives go back every year for holidays!

The system is a joke that is allowed to continue as such because of a loud, obnoxious and vocal minority that has shouted down any questioning of an obviously farcical system with bleats of 'RACISM'! This is not a democracy.. it is a media-ocracy, with government decisions being far too easily influenced by the outpourings of cosseted and deluded journalists and media commentators who would do well to take off their rose tinted glasses and even attempt to understand the real world around them.

Yes, Ireland should take some refugees from Syria, but we should do as the UK and take them directly from camps in Syria or Lebanon, and we should only take a couple of thousand maximum. Yes I have sympathy for the others but quite frankly I am not willing to undermine the country and standard of living that we leave behind for our children at their expense.

Nodin

ComfortKid wrote: »

This sums it up..

You might explain what the second one is trying to say.

ComfortKid

Nodin wrote:

You might explain what the second one is trying to say.

Explain what? You know exactly what it's saying.

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

..............

Why should we share our childrens' legacy with people who have contributed nothing to our society, and who probably never will going by the experience of other Western countries. ( Name one single benefit that the millions of Pakistani (for example) immigrants to the UK brought)
.

Dear god. There's only about one million of them for starters. For such a small population, they've done well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Pakistanis

Nodin

ComfortKid wrote: »

Explain what? You know exactly what it's saying.

The second one? No, otherwise why would I ask?

A Primal Nut

AlekSmart wrote: »

So incensed were large numbers of suffering migrants on this particular issue,that they would throw food-and water away in preference to submitting to a registration process.

Exactly, they can't have suffered that much if a couple of days waiting to be registered is such a big deal, and if they throw away food and water. No starving person would do that.

It's also the sense of entitlement they have that Europe should provide for them. They are mostly conservative Muslims who are making excessive demands on Christian countries, demands they wouldn't dare make in their beloved Saudi Arabia.

The negative portrayal of the Hungarian authorities and police by the media is a disgrace. They've done everything they can.

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

Dear god. There's only about one million of them for starters. For such a small population, they've done well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Pakistanis

Dear god?

There are more than one million people of the UK either of Pakistani birth or decent and I would guess that you know that.

If by doing well you mean that they have congregated in areas that consist almost entirely of other Pakistanis, and where English is rarely spoken, where most vestiges of English or British culture have been dismantled, where Western societal norms are ignored, and which are about as far from integrated, multicultural, or diverse as it is possible to get in Western Europe these days .. then yes they have done well.

Parts of the UK ( specifically in London) with which I have been familiar for decades, and which in the period I was familiar with them were quite diverse, boasting mixed populations of British, Irish, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, African, Polish and others, and where Faiths mixed and did business together as evidenced by for example the large number of Sikhs ( well I assumed them to be Sikh as they wore Turbans, though I am sure this is racist) are now entirely Pakistani- there are almost no white or black people to be seen at all if any. There are no Sikhs any more. And if I were to guess, there are no Indians any more. This is not pure speculation, or guesswork, this is fact.

If you travel ten miles up the road, you come across areas where there are no Asians to be seen at all. Ten miles in the other direction and the population is all black.

Why is this??

Will this happen here? And if not, why will it not happen here?

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

Dear god?

There are more than one million people of the UK either of Pakistani birth or decent and I would guess that you know that.

...yes, not millions as you said.

johnty56 wrote: »

If by doing (......................)done well.?

Rather a clichéd stereotype at this stage.

johnty56 wrote: »

If you travel ten miles up the road, you come across areas where there are no Asians to be seen at all. Ten miles in the other direction and the population is all black.
Why is this??
Will this happen here? And if not, why will it not happen here?

There is a tendency for migrants to settle where earlier migrants have settled. Given that we have refugees, the settlement pattern may not replicate itself.

Given that Pakistani citizens have little to do with the migrant crisis, I'm unsure what your assertions are getting at here.

Nodin

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Exactly, they can't have suffered that much if a couple of days waiting to be registered is such a big deal, and if they throw away food and water. No starving person would do that.

It's also the sense of entitlement they have that Europe should provide for them. They are mostly conservative Muslims who are making excessive demands on Christian countries, demands they wouldn't dare make in their beloved Saudi Arabia.

The negative portrayal of the Hungarian authorities and police by the media is a disgrace. They've done everything they can.

Sorry, but are you referring to Syrians? And why is Saudi Arabia "beloved"?

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

...yes, not millions as you said.



Rather a clichéd stereotype at this stage.



There is a tendency for migrants to settle where earlier migrants have settled. Given that we have refugees, the settlement pattern may not replicate itself.

Given that Pakistani citizens have little to do with the migrant crisis, I'm unsure what your assertions are getting at here.

Cliche it is not. It is however true.

My point is not that migrants are moving to areas in which there are pre-existing communities from their own backgrounds, though this is true.

My point is that members of specific communities, in this case I have used the example of Pakistanis though it is happening in many others, who have previously settled in one area , are moving from that area and congregating in other specific locales creating a mono cultural block where the culture and ways of their country of origin become the dominant culture. How does this benefit the host country?

A Primal Nut

Nodin wrote: »

And the problem is......?

The true agenda of the pro-immigration people showing here (a muslim-dominated Europe)

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

Cliche it is not. It is however true.

My point is not that migrants are moving to areas in which there are pre-existing communities from their own backgrounds, though this is true.

My point is that members of specific communities, in this case I have used the example of Pakistanis though it is happening in many others, who have previously settled in one area , are moving from that area and congregating in other specific locales creating a mono cultural block where the culture and ways of their country of origin become the dominant culture. How does this benefit the host country?

That presumption rests on a vast series of assmuptions, and ignores the number of those of Pakistani origin who have contributed and mingled with British society.

Again, why are we focusing on Pakistanis?

Nodin

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The true agenda of the pro-immigration people showing here (a muslim-dominated Europe)

I wasn't aware that 'not seeing a white face' = 'muslim dominated area', nor that wondering what the problem was with a non-white area equated to support for a muslim dominated Europe.

Were you referring to Syrians in that earlier post? And why is Saudi Arabia their "beloved"?

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

That presumption rests on a vast series of assmuptions, and ignores the number of those of Pakistani origin who have contributed and mingled with British society.

Again, why are we focusing on Pakistanis?

Again, you are being obtuse. As I clearly stated, I was using Pakistanis as an example. The same is true of many immigrants of non Western origin.

I am not mentioning this in relation to the refugees we are taking from Syria, and indeed I am of the opinion that it is misfortunate that the asylum system here is abused so blatently by others, ( including Pakistanis coming from the UK and claiming asylum here:) ), as the Syrians are being tarred with the same brush which in fairness they do not deserve to be.

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

Again, you are being obtuse. As I clearly stated, I was using Pakistanis as an example. The same is true of many immigrants of non Western origin. .

Having some knowledge of US history, I can say its true of immigrants full stop.

johnty56 wrote: »

I am not mentioning this in relation to the refugees we are taking from Syria, and indeed I am of the opinion that it is misfortunate that the asylum system here is abused so blatently by others, ( including Pakistanis coming from the UK and claiming asylum here:) ), as the Syrians are being tarred with the same brush which in fairness they do not deserve to be.

Again, you seem to be just posting in order to get a dig in at the Pakistani community.

If you have evidence that some have travelled from the UK in breach of the relevant laws, you should report the individuals involved.

petrolcan

johnty56 wrote: »

Why should we share our childrens' legacy with people who have contributed nothing to our society, and who probably never will going by the experience of other Western countries. ( Name one single benefit that the millions of Pakistani (for example) immigrants to the UK brought)

Why do you single out Pakistanis as, and I quote, "people who have contributed nothing to our society, and who probably never will"?

Round my way, pretty much all of the corner shops are run by Pakistanis, most of whom start at 6am and finish at 11pm. They are a massive contributor to our society.

johnty56

petrolcan wrote: »

Why do you single out Pakistanis as, and I quote, "people who have contributed nothing to our society, and who probably never will"?

Round my way, pretty much all of the corner shops are run by Pakistanis, most of whom start at 6am and finish at 11pm. They are a massive contributor to our society.

I used Pakistanis as an example. Both you and Nodin are attempting to imply that I am 'having a dig' at that nationality in particular in order to deflect from the actual issue that I am discussing. This is the problem with threads like this.. there is constant deflection and attempts to vilify the poster ( which is against the charter I would imagine) in order I would think to cause the thread to descend to petty argument.

I am making a valid point, and all of your sly insinuations will not change that.

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

Having some knowledge of US history, I can say its true of immigrants full stop.


Again, you seem to be just posting in order to get a dig in at the Pakistani community.

If you have evidence that some have travelled from the UK in breach of the relevant laws, you should report the individuals involved.

I don't personally know them Nodin, as you well know. I am sure you are familiar with the newspaper reports of 700 or so illegal immigrants from Pakistan having crossed the border from Northern Ireland in the last year.
This is what I was referring to. And if it makes you happy, I am sure that there were many more illegal immigrants of other nationalities, and not just Pakistanis, who also crossed the border from Northern Ireland.