[Closed] Whats the general view of the migrants on boats ?

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:new-qexcisionq-law-does-not-relieve-australia-of-its-responsibilities-towards-asylum-seekers-unhcr&catid=35:news-a-media&Itemid=63

See what the UNHCR has to say about it.

If somebody is seeking asylum returning them to the place they were running from has a lot of issues.

Im guessing it's mostly covered in here
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/migrants-from-africa-what-to-do

[i]The ideal solution would be to turn the boats back has a migrant boat ever been returned to its original sailing point if so what happened to that boat and its passengers ?[/i]

How can we know? Whats the alternative, airlift/ship millions from Syria and elsewhere to our shores and integrate them in our society? Thought Nige came out with a sensible solution.

I would guess the average migrant doesn't really want to go to Naura Papua New Guinea as there's nothing there for them ! Hence why they want to go to Australia/Europe

Correct me iff I'm wrong but I think theses people getting the boats pay good money to the traffickers to get them over the water,men women and children just like us,they must be desparate,I can imagine they are,I feel sorry for any family having to flee their home,it's happening in Britain to the Christian people at the moment...is it not?

Whats the general view of the migrants on boats ?

That they must be escaping a pretty horrific life and some compassion is probably needed rather than telling them to turn their boats around and deal with their problems where they left.

From above or below the waterline?

We'd be better off using political / financial / military influence to sort out some stability in their home countries. Most appear to be persecuted minorities and who can blame them for seeking a better life?

Give them all the help they need, open up a legal entry system into Europe. Support and aid countries of origin to become more stable.

I feel sorry for any family having to flee their home,it's happening in Britain to the Christian people at the moment...is it not?

Where would they go ?

Hopefully there is room under the bridge for them all

What nic said and

That they must be escaping a pretty horrific life and some compassion is probably needed rather than telling them to turn their boats around and deal with their problems where they left.

There but for the grace of God do I or my kids ever need to do this

we could also spread out the wealth if the west so they are not so shit poor/starving/desperate that they will risk death to get here.

The easy answer is sort out Libya, the hard answer is how? Possibly try and use NATO/UN as peace keepers, but I dunno if that would work. Destroying ISIS would also be a good start, but again not so simple in practice.

[i]Give them all the help they need, open up a legal entry system into Europe. Support and aid countries of origin to become more stable.[/i]

Obviously the situation is totally appalling, but imagine if we put a footbridge from N Africa into the heart of Europe....how many would walk over it? Do you have any idea of the numbers involved if we opened up such a route? It would completely destabilise the whole of Europe.

No...we have to turn them around and do our best to help them help themselves.

No...we have to [s]turn them around and do our best to help them help themselves.[/s] be completely heartless

If UKIP suddenly became an aggressive force and went around killing British people who did not agree with them, were not the same colour, were not the same religion etc as them and you were one of the targeted groups would you not want your neighbours to show you a bit of care until the trouble blows over?

Unfitgeezer I don't really know where they would go,I would like to think that we could all get on and help each other,but that's never going to happen.

[i]If UKIP suddenly became an aggressive force and went around killing British people who did not agree with them, were not the same colour, were not the same religion etc as them and you were one of the targeted groups would you not want your neighbours to show you a bit of care until the trouble blows over?[/i]

So simplistic.....particularly liked the 'until it blows over' bit!

would you not want your neighbours to show you a bit of care until the trouble blows over?

But we aren't their neighbours. Many of the migrants are from sub Saharan Africa. There are dozens of safe countries closer than here. Many of them are economic migrants.

If there was an open door to Europe many millions of 3rd world people would come here. How many is too many?

So so we allow the ones with enough money to pay the traffickers to come over but not the poorer ones? Maybe build camps in Eastern Europe somewhere for them - funded by the EU rather than putting pressure on the countries where they arrive.

[i]Maybe build camps in Eastern Europe somewhere for them[/i]

I'm sure the Eastern European countries would welcome your suggestion....they hate black people! 😯

I would counter that your view is just as, if not more, simplistic. "We have to do our best to help them help themselves" - these people have practically nothing and aren't able to stand up to what is going on around them. They have no money, no weapons, no support. Telling them to deal with the problem themselves with the help of a few quid from us is cold naivety that will not solve the problem quickly enough to save people's lives.

If, in the short term until a better solution is found, the answer is to let people come to Europe to escape being killed then surely that is better than saying "we can't cope with you lot". There will be a long term solution that doesn't involve migration to Europe but it won't save lives now.

Besides, Europe isn't even facing the majority of the problem-

http://blogs.redcross.org.uk/refugeesservices/2015/04/extreme-flood-alert-are-we-awash-with-refugees/

1% of the world's refugees head to the UK, 80% to countries bordering the source nation. There's room for them. Remember that an asylum seeker can't work, they aren't "stealing" your job Rockape. It's probably much cheaper to put them up than have a military solution.

If somebody is seeking asylum returning them to the place they were running from has a lot of issues.

The vast majority of these immigrants do not come from the country of departure, they have travelled large distances across many countries in order to attempt to enter Europe.

I would change the law such that you can only claim asylum from abroad.

I've posted it before but these Europe or Die pieces from Vice news are worth watching. A few here, there is a series

@munro the UK is spending $700m supporting Syrian refugees.

[i]So so we allow the ones with enough money to pay the traffickers to come over but not the poorer ones? [/i]

Here's a simplistic suggestion....we send gunboats to sink all boats identified as being used by traffickers before they can use them. We continue to patrol North Africa to ensure no boats leave their shores. At the same time we send troops to secure a large area 100 sq miles and send in aid to this area to feed and protect them.....until the situation blows over?

@munro the UK is spending $700m supporting Syrian refugees.

And? Is that helping the situation in Syria drastically, or do people still need to escape?

Maybe start by writing off the ludicrous IMF debts etc.

Then start looking at helping with infratructure projects instead of sending endless charity, lets help these countries to help themselves.
stop all the European farming protection and help the farmers to get a decent return for their products.

But nothing will happen because the EU is an incompetent waste of time and has never done anything to help anyone.

Not necessarily issues which entitle them to asylum. There are billions of people who live in very difficult economic conditions to whom Europe is a far better place to live. However Europe cannot take them all.

It's right that the EU cannot take all those that wish to come, but as some of the richest nations on the planet there is a role to play in helping others, be that in stabalising their homes or helping them find somewhere to settle. The Europeans set off and deposited themselves all over the globe and proceeded to screw up great chunks of it building empires now a lot of that is coming home.

We complain that british people are too unmotivated and lazy... So maybe an injection of people so damn motivated that they'll face a 1/20 risk of death to flee their homes and go to a place they've never seen to seek a better life, would a good thing. Just a thought like. No idea what it'd take to get me to do that, something sufficiently bloody awful that a bit of a hand would be welcome though.

jambalaya - Member

@munro the UK is spending $700m supporting Syrian refugees.

Which is a lot less than we nearly spent bombing syria.

I feel sorry for any family having to flee their home,it's happening in Britain to the Christian people at the moment...is it not?

Just popping this one out there.... (Edit NSFW, translation available)

It's a huge conundrum - the more you save, the more word gets back and others are encouraged to try. No human can stand by and watch another suffer or even drown and these are ordinary people who are so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives. I'm surprised to read that in the latest round of discussions it was agreed that boats would be destroyed; I'd have thought that was already done every time a boat appeared in the open sea once the refugees had been removed.

We are to blame for having destroyed the status quo in countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria. Distasteful though those regimes were, we should have allowed them to run their course in the hope of encouraging a more democratic successor. It can be done; look at Rwanda, which is now reckoned to be one of the best administered, least corrupt countries in Africa. Okay, it's a Police state but it is working.

Which is a lot less than we nearly spent bombing syria.

@mike I posted the amount to demonstrate that the UK is very a significant contribution.

The reality is financial considerations are relevant. Italy was spending 110m euros on the prior rescue operation which they felt was just encouraging more immigrants, also the other EU countries would not contribute so they stopped it. Then there are the costs of the migrants, if you think each one could cost 100,000 euros in terms of support over 5 years each 1,000 people cost 100 million and if we take the UNs figure of 1 million that's a cost of 100 billion. There is no appetite in the EU to take this number of people or pay that sort of bill.

There is no appetite in the EU to take this number of people or pay that sort of bill.

Rescue them, drop them off where they set sail from and keep the boat.

To be an asylum seeker you have to claim it in the first country you arrive in. In the vast majority of cases Europe is not the first country, so they are economic migrants trying to enter illegally.

We shold follow TOny Abbotts advice. That seems to have worked well

We shold follow TOny Abbotts advice. That seems to have worked well

Edit.. He is also a triathlete

for me the fundamental question we should ask ourselves is what would we do to get our family, our children, our wifes and partners, our parents to somewhere safe if we were ever in their position.

Think about it, consider your town and city is bombed or people are being shot/killed? Your family is both starving and dying. You are in real danger? And nobody can help locally.

Before you try and solve the problem, think about it. How would you want somebody to treat you if the roles were reversed?

We are to blame for having destroyed the status quo in countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria.

How exactly is Syria our fault. As far as I remember parliament voted not to get involved in military action in Syria. The logic seems to be that because of the Iraq war we are responsible for the subsequent Iraq govt failures. So are we to blame whether or not we take military action?

Where is the evidence that this is the case for the majority of the migrants.The vast majority are from sub saharan africa. There are plenty of safe countries alot closer than Europe if they are genuinly in fear of their lives.

Thats rather simplistic ti-pin-man

a great many of the migrants are not refugees/asylum seekers, those that are there is a legal duty to protect, but economic migration (ie. those seeking a better life, but not under any direct or immediate threat at home) is surely different both legally and morally.

It's difficult as mentioned Globalti the more save the more that want to come. At the same time they and their are nothing more than slaves to people smugglers and loan sharks. Their family will often take out loans that never end to get a child out of the country. The people smugglers give them credit or kidnap to get even more money from their family. Any credit is again never ending and they will be exploited where ever they may end up.
I think the honest answer is to intercept the boats before they land. Take the people back to the country of departure, sink the boat and sentence the crew to long prison terms. In the country of departure a UN run camp should process the refugees with thorough checks, pressure their home country governments and police forces to come down tough on the money lenders again giving tough sentences to those who profit out people smuggling. Refugees with genuine need of assistance would then be provided safe haven in a suitable country.

they look very nice, but I don't think I could eat a whole one

There is no appetite in the EU to take this number of people or pay that sort of bill.

There is no appetite from the right to take this number of people or pay that bill. People with compassion do have that appetite.

Chrismac- The vast majority (80%) do stay in their neighbouring countries (see the link I posted earlier from the Red Cross). But some of these countries aren't safe either, some may have links to Europe already or it's the easiest way out for a certain ethnic/religious group. There's a good comparison of what would happen if the UK was subject to this- a lot of people would got to Australia or Canada, not France. Because they have ties there.

Also, where's the evidence that there are so many economic migrants on the boats? A quick google doesn't throw anything up, or are you and jambalaya simply lumping everyone together in order to support your views?

In the country of departure a UN run camp should process the refugees with thorough checks

The more I read on the issues, the more I am convinced that this is the only way - the only acceptable method to achieve asylum status has to be refugee camps at the first neutral point of call, and we should only accept and rehome from there - anyone showing up elsewhere has to be sent back to there for processing, otherwise the most needy will lose out to those who make the journey, and the whole system collapses under illegal trafficking and gaming of the system (eg turning up at heathrow without paperwork so they cannot be returned)

Can Europe afford them all? Seriously, we live in one of the most affluent parts of the globe, forget about worrying about redundancy or the fact the house you own hasn't 'earned' you 5 figures this year for doing jack-shit - Compared to the places most of the poor people come from we have more of everything by such a huge margin it's frankly obscene to suggest we can't afford to feed, cloth and home them.

Wanting to risk their lives and leave everything behind puts them head and shoulders above the level of drive of most Europeans, but of course we brand them lazy and only here for hand-outs and the promise of free everything.

Our Brit) big issue with it I think is the fact that, most of our European cousins seem to do their very hardest to pass them along the line, they get to Italy or Spain or France and they push them further west until they get to us - it gets to the point when the French are selling the idea of the UK as the Garden of Eden and in turn we're pushing out propaganda about how shit it is here - I suppose we could follow suit, tell them all Ireland is the place to be and force them all into internment camps in Holyhead or Pembroke Dock

[b]P-Jay[/b]

How many are you willing to put up in your house then ?

lazy and only here for hand-outs and the promise of free everything.

sounds about right then…for some of them...

lazy and only here for hand-outs and the promise of free everything.

sounds about right then…for some of [s]them[/s] the people born in the UK...

How do you propose to pick out the real claimants while turning their boat around?

my view is that we need to start building the infrastructure needed for the extra 20million people that will arrive in the next 50 years.

[i]Obviously the situation is totally appalling, but imagine if we put a footbridge from N Africa into the heart of Europe....how many would walk over it? Do you have any idea of the numbers involved if we opened up such a route? It would completely destabilise the whole of Europe.[/i]

Who said they have to end up in Europe?

There were something like 1.5million vietnamese "boat people" resettled in the 70-90s, the US took nearly half million and Aus and Canada took 100's thousands

What's changed between then and now, surely we're richer than we were then (because capitalism) but we've become less compassionate?

@mike 🙂 safe for work with headphones, I am good with one in one out BTW ! Its not a matter of the immigrants taking jobs it's the cost of supporting them, the longer they don't take a job the longer they rely on the state fully or partially. Remember that stat posted on STW which said you must earn circa £340k to pay into the state what you'll get out.

Yep, but rather than saying no what would you do instead while protecting those seeking asylum? How can you police and protect the entire med coast line to stop people leaving?

You don't protect the Med coast. You patrol coasts near to where the boats are leaving such as Libya.

a great many of the migrants are not refugees/asylum seekers, those that are there is a legal duty to protect, but economic migration (ie. those seeking a better life, but not under any direct or immediate threat at home) is surely different both legally and morally.

Legally, yes. Morally? I'm not so sure. When you're living in a small rural village with no running water or electricity and the risk of famine ever present - you can say they're "economic migrants" if it makes you feel better about locking them out, but don't try and pretend it's morally correct.

[img] [/img]

You don't protect the Med coast. You patrol coasts near to where the boats are leaving such as Libya.

Whats the general view of the migrants on boats ?

My view is that majority can survive in their countries because they are not exactly those that are fighting the govt/rebel aren't they?

I repeat: Majority are NOT persecuted in their countries. Even if the terrorists/rebels take over they are Not going to be killed because they are not fighters.

Majority are economic migrants that jump the queue or force their way in.

The real ones that are going to be persecuted never make it because they would be death before they can escape.

The majority has taken the rights/place of those genuinely needing help.

Personally, send the majority of them back to the coastline from where they came from then at that location perhaps process the real ones from the fake ones.

unfitgeezer - Member
Can Europe really cope with the cost...No ?

Print more money? Cost is of no issue but the wider societal impact can be detrimental to some communities.

Yes, some say we can live together but try overdosing it a bit see if people are still welcoming.

The ideal solution would be to turn the boats back has a migrant boat ever been returned to its original sailing point if so what happened to that boat and its passengers ?

Yes, that's the solution otherwise they are just going to keep coming.

Thoughts ?

I am not guilty.

They created it themselves then they have to live with it.

Someone is going to get rid of the Syrian govt then that someone can deal with the influx.

🙄

I reckon they should all piss off back where they came from.

[img] [/img]

Yes, I have seen how long the coast of Libya is and it's less than half of Italy's. With drones able to scan the sea's much faster than ever before ships can intercept these boats quicker and turn then around.

Legally, yes. Morally? I'm not so sure. When you're living in a small rural village with no running water or electricity and the risk of famine ever present - you can say they're "economic migrants" if it makes you feel better about locking them out, but don't try and pretend it's morally correct.

But its not the poorest of the poor who are able to migrate but those slightly better off, who can afford to do pay the traffickers - by rewarding them with success, you cast aside those in even greater need.

edit: as CheckW says, they are taking the rights/place of those genuinely needing help.

With drones able to scan the sea's much faster than ever before ships can intercept these boats quicker and turn then around.

Could we not run a sort of exchange programme with our resident unemployable scrotes?

For every boat heading our way, we send an inflatable dinghy full of track-suit clad, Stella-drinking, weed-smoking shoplifters back in the other direction.

That'd work!

Take the people back to the country of departure, sink the boat and sentence the crew to long prison terms

Yes, I have seen how long the coast of Libya is and it's less than half of Italy's. With drones able to scan the sea's much faster than ever before ships can intercept these boats quicker and turn then around.

Its all very complicated.

Could we not run a sort of exchange programme with our resident unemployable scrotes?

Who destabilized the area?

Where do the people with weapons get the weapons from and how do they afford them?

These are the kind of questions that need to be asked to get to the bottom of how the situation has developed and prevent escalation.

In the meantime, surely if the governments of wealthy countries can afford military spending, they can afford to help people affected by the actions of their (our) taxpayer funded Armed Forces and intelligence services.

Furthermore, whoever is profiting from the sale of weapons which escalate conflicts should be legally bound to provide aid for populations affected by their products.

How does a drone intercept a boat? Or does it them radio for a boat to intercept the other boat at some point when it's out to sea?

How do you then asses a legal right to claim asylum before returning those unworthy back home? When you are transferring the genuine refugees back to the EU (where they are legally allowed to claim asylum) who then patrols the border?

Could we not run a sort of exchange programme with our resident unemployable scrotes?

binners for President!

Do you think that imprisoning a few Libyan fishermen for decades is going to completely counteract all the forces driving people to the boats?

Are you going to continue to put buckets under a leaking roof or fix the leak?

The problem isn't the asylum seeker but those who profit from trafficking. Try reading my earlier post.

So you are going to setup camps in a country that is not under any control? YOu also need a large naval presence to patrol this space and lots of boats in that fleet (how about setting off 6 or 7 boats in a way that means you can't get to all of them?)

If you set up refugee processing then expect plenty to queue up and be ready to apply and also expect plenty to try and get round the system. The Australian example is not a good one as the UN point out.

Is this an issue for Russia or is it purely Western Europe they want to get to?

The problem isn't the asylum seeker but those who profit from trafficking. Try reading my earlier post.

Mike, no point debating with you. I would rather the asylum seekers reaches safety rather than be thrown over board so the smuggler can make more profit. I have no problem with offering asylum but I do have a problem with those that trade on others suffering.

The profits are vast. Each migrant is charged at least $1,000 (£580), and more than 200 are loaded into each boat, giving him a business that generates $1m or more a week. The profit margins mean he can afford to abandon boats and migrants on the high seas.

New boats are, however, in short supply, because Libyan boat builders cannot get supplies of timber in this crisis-torn country, and his crews face arrest if they are on board when the boats are stopped by Italian navy patrols.

So he has recently adopted a new strategy. His crews now search for Italian warships, which patrol near an oil platform at Bouri, 70 miles from the Libyan coast.

"As soon as the ship reaches Bouri field, I call the military forces," he says. His crew then abandons ship in a rubber boat, and waits while the Italians pick up the migrants, leaving the boat adrift. Then his crew scrambles back aboard and sails back to Libya for a fresh cargo.

If you want this to be the asylum seekers only route then why should we bother to try and change it?

Is this an issue for Russia or is it purely Western Europe they want to get to?

Certainly plenty who get to Italy and they avoid being finger printed / ID'd as once that happens they can't claim asylum in, say, the UK (that's the EU law). A large number (all ?) of the migrants in Calais have come there through Europe without registering anywhere so they can try and enter the UK and claim asylum here.

But its not the poorest of the poor who are able to migrate but those slightly better off, who can afford to do pay the traffickers - by rewarding them with success, you cast aside those in even greater need.

edit: as CheckW says, they are taking the rights/place of those genuinely needing help.

I think you're comparing someone with $5 to his name to someone with $1 - they're both still dirt poor, and genuinely need help. They're not going to risk their lives on an overloaded boat for a quick jolly, nor is this an attempt to avoid having to pay for a legal flight.

The boat trip costs $500 on a boat likely to sink or $5000 on one which can make it. Plus you've paid to travel from sub-sharan Africa

The boat trip costs $500 on a boat likely to sink or $5000 on one which can make it. Plus you've paid to travel from sub-sharan Africa

So if they're so rich (relatively) why are they coming in such large numbers?

[i]So if they're so rich (relatively) why are they coming in such large numbers?[/i]

Could it be the free house, free healthcare and substantial benefits payments by any chance? Just a thought! 😕

@mogrim as @Rockape63 says the financial upside is much much larger whether they survive on benefits or get a job legitimately or in the underground economy.

Could it be the free house, free healthcare and substantial benefits payments by any chance? Just a thought!

Only the ones that can genuinely get asylum, that doesn't apply to the economic migrants I was talking about.

[i]Could it be the free house, free healthcare and substantial benefits payments by any chance? Just a thought! [/i]

[url= http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1 ]Truth about asylum seekers and benefits [/url]

So if they're so rich (relatively) why are they coming in such large numbers?

They get to live in a tower block in Rochdale. This in itself tells you all you need to know about how truly desperate these people are. Perhaps some beachside billlboards extolling the many virtues of a life in Rochdale might do the trick?

Rockape63 - Member

Could it be the free house, free healthcare and substantial benefits payments by any chance? Just a thought!

Yes, that's why people are risking death. Substantial benefits payments? The average UK asylum seeker gets £35 per week of which only £10 comes in cash. So you think people are spending thousands of pounds and abandoning everything they have, for £1820 a year