to be worried about Islamic State terrorists sneaking in with the refugees/migrants?

[ender]

Surely this is a risk with such large numbers?
Although if it was then presumably more effort would have been made to screen the incomers when they first arrived in Hungary.
Is there some kind of screening/surveillance going on that we don't know about?

Goodness if me and my family were trapped somewhere less than ideal but not violent I too would be saying come on lets try our luck!

Morality of this aside, that would make you very much an economic migrant and not a refugee.

A very different prospect indeed; families literally fleeing for their lives versus, as described above, essentially chancers.

I would think it very sad if the chancers are causing the borders to be closed thus depriving those who need it of humanitarian aid.

Goodness if me and my family were trapped somewhere less than ideal but not violent I too would be saying come on lets try our luck!

Exactly. We all would.

But I'm very curious about exactly what has changed Germany's mind. Could it just be that^ situation with various nationalities joining the caravan?

It surely can't be the numbers. They must have realised how many would come.

Germany is a federal state, which means that the individual states would be responsible for picking up the burden Angela Merkel has so kindly laid on them.

My view is that this was a massive captain's call by her and, in the last few days, each state has made it clear that they can't carry it out.

So many people calling for the UK to accept refugees, and so few answers to the question of housing them!

ISWYM Toad

Yabu. Many UK citizens are now fighting for IS - no point getting paranoid about refugees.

Dismayed at some of the daily mail opinions on this thread. Have any of you actually spent time with refugees and asylum seekers? I have, and they've been some of the most remarkable, inspirational people I've met. Imagine spending eight years in substandard accommodation, unable to work, little money, away from friends and family, whilst the ins and outs of your personal circumstances are investigated by the home office and your asylum application is determined. Its not enough to say 'I was persecuted by x government for being gay' and for the home office to know that gay people generally are persecuted in that country - you have to prove that you personally were in mortal danger. So you're reliving your reasons for leaving each and every day. And yet, the people I've met are somehow able to be happy, to find joy despite uncertainty.

The disneyfication of refugees is just as irritating as the other extreme, though Cherry.

I too have worked with refugees and found them to be human beings, with the normal range of virtues and foibles and yes, perhaps more tested than most. But I've met people in extremis in women's refuges too (a pretty comparable experience in many ways) and found the licensees to be a very similar group. Many of them very likeable and gritty and resourceful but I'm not sure ANY of them would welcome this sugary stuff.

Could it just be that^ situation with various nationalities joining the caravan?

I read a report of a death on the railway line in Hungary of a man identified as Pakistani nationality. (Amnesty, here)

Interestingly it refers to 'migrants and refugees.'

Well, Germany has opened this Pandora's Box with the rash open invitation. Now the trickle of refugees and economic migrants will become a human Tsunami. Hungary and others are closing their borders (so predicable) and no agreement has been reached by the member states over qoutas (also totally predictable).

I believe our approach is right - take refugees from UN camps to dissuade mass independant migration across the seas to enter Europe - extremely dangerous for the refugees and too chaotic for Europe to handle.

No it isn't. It is a way of making sure genuine refugees don't turn to smugglers (a strategy that compares very favourably with Angela Merkel's). And the truth is that states who are obliged to accept asylum seekers do have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere precisely because those claiming to be asylum seekers generally don't have much in the way of papers.

Letting a whole bunch of refugees stream across the continent won't just cause chaos. It will also cause misery and hardship for those refugees. Setting up camps (assuming that they are set up and run properly) is much better. It might seem hard headed, but it will help more people than good intentions and magnanimous gestures. The only reservation I have is whether governments are resisting accepting all migrants because they don't think the public would stand it, rather than because it would be impossible to organise and fund.

NB: I have heard that the Gvt has spent a billion quid on providing food, medicine etc to Syrian refugee camps in the last few years.

Buggered if I know, and what I would accept as sufficient is hardly relevant. The point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere unless anyone who simply claims to be a refugee is granted asylum. Is that what you think should happen?

"So when is the UK going to take anyone from the camp?"

Theresa May told the House today that arrivals begun 'within days'

Camps are all very well, but the UNHCR will need funding. The funding shortfall is enormous and refugee rations are being cut. Refugees stranded in the Middle East and unable to access sufficient aid are returning to Syria. Many won't stay there; next time they will try their luck in Europe instead.