Goodbye to the UK as we know it

Pollycat

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

I wonder if you will be saying this when those members of ISIS who are calling themselves refugee's and claiming asylum starting bombing our cities and towns.

So your answer is to reject all refugee's (sic)?

BlueEyedGirl

Pollycat wrote: »

So your answer is to reject all refugee's (sic)?

No, but more through checks need to be made before allowing these people asylum in our or anyone else's country.

ThumbRemote

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

I wonder if you will be saying this when those members of ISIS who are calling themselves refugee's and claiming asylum starting bombing our cities and towns.

Given the news stories about people going from the UK to join ISIS in Syria, why would Syria need to export ISIS members back here?

Pollycat

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

No, but more through checks need to be made before allowing these people asylum in our or anyone else's country.

So you will keep them all on the border of their own country or on the wrong side of the border of an EU country whilst these thorough checks are made....?

And which government will do those checks?
And if say, Hungary says a person has been thoroughly checked out and can claim asylum will you expect that person to remain in Hungary? Because that's what you've said in your previous posts.

nonnatus

BluEyedGirl speaks much sense. I also believe that the "refugees" are being choosy - pouring through countries where they would find safety, all scrabbling desperately to get to the Promised Land of UK where our streets are paved with easy-to-get Benefits.

Make it FAR FAR harder (or impossible) to be given benefits and homes and the word will soon spread. The ONLY reason they risk life and limb to get here is financial I'm afraid. They are economic migrants and if the Government doesn't get tough, this poor country will collapse.

Right now I'd like to up-sticks myself and get out of this awful place. I'd like to go to Australia or New Zealand where there is plenty of land, cheap homes, no immigration issues and great weather. But they won't let me in because I don't score nearly enough points on their Migrant Tests....

BlueEyedGirl

Pollycat wrote: »

So you will keep them all on the border of their own country or on the wrong side of the border of an EU country whilst these thorough checks are made....?

And which government will do those checks?
And if say, Hungary says a person has been thoroughly checked out and can claim asylum will you expect that person to remain in Hungary? Because that's what you've said in your previous posts.

No, I would return them back to where they have come from.

http://news.sky.com/story/1548073/hungary-tells-germany-to-stop-taking-refugees

Even Hungary has had enough of the German's taking over. Although they are probably trying to score points because of what they did to the Jews in the war! Guilt trip perhaps!

Pollycat

nonnatus wrote: »

BluEyedGirl speaks much sense. I also believe that the "refugees" are being choosy - pouring through countries where they would find safety, all scrabbling desperately to get to the Promised Land of UK where our streets are paved with easy-to-get Benefits.

Make it FAR FAR harder (or impossible) to be given benefits and homes and the word will soon spread. The ONLY reason they risk life and limb to get here is financial I'm afraid. They are economic migrants and if the Government doesn't get tough, this poor country will collapse.

Right now I'd like to up-sticks myself and get out of this awful place. I'd like to go to Australia or New Zealand where there is plenty of land, cheap homes, no immigration issues and great weather. But they won't let me in because I don't score nearly enough points on their Migrant Tests....

They are not all economic migrants. :wall:

BlueEyedGirl

Also, ask yourself this. The Syrian war started in 2011 that is 4 years ago. Why have those living in Syria (in a war torn country) gone on to have children after a war started. How many children are you seeing in the press pictures under the age of 4 in the arms of their parents? Was it sensible of their parents to have children in a country that was already in a state of unrest? Or perhaps there plan all along was to escape and claim asylum using their own children as a form of bate.

And why now is there a sudden influx for the EU? I know let us stampede the EU and hopefully anyone can get through!

Pollycat

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

No, I would return them back to where they have come from.

Do you mean you would return them back to 'where they have come from' (presumably you mean their own country?) until more thorough checks have been done on their actual status?

Tropez

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

Also, ask yourself this. The Syrian war started in 2011 that is 4 years ago. Why have those living in Syria (in a war torn country) gone on to have children after a war started. How many children are you seeing in the press pictures under the age of 4 in the arms of their parents? Was it sensible of their parents to have children in a country that was already in a state of unrest? Or perhaps there plan all along was to escape and claim asylum using their own children as a form of bate.

And why now is there a sudden influx for the EU? I know let us stampede the EU and hopefully anyone can get through!

The majority of the Syrian population, some 60%, is located in Western Syria. The majority of initial hostilities between the Syrian government and rebel groups, such as the Free Syrian Army took place in these areas. It wasn't until later that open warfare between multiple parties, including ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front, began occurring in other parts of the country, particularly the central and Eastern areas of the country. Even now, despite controlling the majority of Syria's territory, ISIS only control around 25% to 35% of the population with other territories being held by Kurdish forces, other militant groups and a small area controlled by the Syrian government in south-eastern central Syria.

Until ISIS came barreling along, many people living in towns and cities outside of the main areas of conflict would not necessarily have considered themselves to be in a war-torn country, even if the spectre of military action by the Syrian government continued to loom in the distance. Raqqa, for example, was largely unaffected by the conflict until March 2013 when rebel and government forces clashed. It was then seized by the Al-Nusra Front, and then again taken over by ISIS, at which point it became the target for Syrian government and Coalition led attacks.

Kobani is another such place, to an extent. It was seized by Kurdish forces in 2012 but was largely left alone by the Syrian government as they were committing the bulk of their forces to fighting the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups in the west of the country. Aside from minor conflicts between the Kurdish forces and opposition groups in Syria the city was relatively unscathed by the Syrian Civil War. It wasn't until around two years later that Kobani was beseiged by ISIS and effectively turned to ruin.

You also cannot discount the chance that some poor people may only have had children due to the high level of sex-crimes being committed by the various factions involved in the war.