They're not refugees, we're being invaded

[goonthenflameme]

I admit, the Syrians have got it bad. There is a war and those boys who haven't been shot by ISIL are being conscripted by the President.

But if life is that bad, why do they only want to go to Germany and if they can't go then then they'll go back to Syria.

Why are we now seeing people from Kazakstan joining the throngs?

I agree that people from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria need help. But the thougsands and thousands of people coming through can't all be refugees in dire need of help if they are so picky as to where they will live.

They're invading Europe. And we are letting them. What's going to happen in 20 years? Will Christianity and western ways be swept under the carpet?

People have mentioned some reasons why mostly young men. I scanned the thread quickly, so not sure if this has been mentioned, but it's young men who may be conscripted into conflict, or (when where they live is invaded) simply be killed. Remember some of the massacres in Bosnia, when essentially all males of adult height were separated from women and children, taken away and killed. Men are less safe than women and children, they do have more reason to flee a war zone.

They are the people on MN

the government and foreign office take advice directly from mumsnet!?

If so, hello Mr Cameron, I would like a new kitchen please.

This is clearly a very difficult an emotive subject, and I for one struggle with it. I am an immigrant too - came to this country with a suitcase on my own when I was 19. I did rather well, always worked hard and made a good life for myself. It was incredibly hard to leave behind my family and it still is a wrench to this day.

In my heart I have so much sympathy and can relate to young men/women or families wanting a better life in Germany or the UK - after all we are often talking about educated, ambitious young people, who know full well there will be little prospect in countries like Greece, Croatia, Hungary etc.. for them. I know because I myself "escaped" one of those countries.

However, the sheer volume of this will result in problems. No point in having rose tinted glasses as all you have to do is look to my home country, one of those receiving thousands per month, and who have done so for years - to see all the incredible difficulties they are facing.

Going back to my home country, I have witnessed tiny sleepy rural villages transformed in refugee camps with huge piles of litter, overcrowding and very real safety problems. Girls and women are now having to walk around always accompanied as rape and violent attacks on women is a daily reality - as is pretty crime. Let's not even go near what is going in hospitals and schools - it makes my heart bleed - it feels like the country has been abandoned to rot in hell. I had once the misfortune to go to A&E with my son and would not even begin to describe what I saw.

It is an unavoidable situation where you place thousands of people in small communities with no resources. It isn't the refugees/immigrants that are at fault here but the authorities and the wider international communities who are not intervening and providing resources to help the situation.

This isn't a problem we can face by just "allowing" loads of people to flow in uncontrolled. It needs huge amount of resources to ensure they are properly integrated in civil society and the question is, do we have the cash to do so and if so, where is it coming from?

"Men are less safe than women and children, they do have more reason to flee a war zone."

Why don't you go over to FWR? I think the MNers would like to make a case study out of you.

Of all the odd, colourful, and even extraordinary examples of "What about the menz?" over the years, I believe nobody has quite made it to claiming that men are less safe then women & children in a war zone. Bravo. I mean it.

Although I think the people of mumsnet are right when they suggest that threads like this are deliberately goady and designed to spread fear and make life difficult for any refugees who are 'welcomed' here.

Its like one minute you are helping a refugee, the next minute they have nicked your house, you are wearing a burka and the doctor is seeing them first at the local surgery.

British culture is that fragile.

I see the point about the young men being fit enough to travel etc but then can't square that up with them leaving their wives/mothers/daughters to their fate and, how, if the country to so dangerous are those they need to flee how are the wives/daughters/mothers going to safely get out once the men settle in the west, if it wasn't safe to go with them in the first place.

As for the issues around settling here, where are they going to go? I don't know of anywhere in the UK without housing waiting lists, although please correct me if I'm wrong...Many people here don't live in suitable housing, there are homeless people living in doorways. If we can afford to put newcomers up in hotels then surely we need to be doing the same for people here. Or are we going to welcome them and then leave them to sort themselves out?

I do agree we need to help but unless there are structures put into place to help both them and the existing population there will be resentment from some quarters.

so will the bloody government pull their heads out their arses and embark on a social housing building programme please

merry you are making this really hard work. Either i am not communicating clearly or you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Let me try again.

I was responding to this:

Who is talking about flinging the doors open and inviting everyone? I haven't seen anyone saying this. The government has made it clear that it will allow a limited number of refugees to come here. I can't say I've noticed anyone on here saying "it's not enough, we must let them all come".

The important part being 'I can't say I've noticed anyone on here saying 'it's not enough, we must let them all come.'

I said:

Well when people will not be drawn on finite numbers and they will not be drawn on a discussion about why it is not only right but ESSENTIAL to follow proper protocol and procedure to make sure that we are taking the most vulnerable people for the right reasons, then they may as well be saying 'just fling open the doors.

You said:

Who are these 'people'?' The average person will not have the information to tell you - what are you expecting?

and I said, quite clearly, the people on MN. I don't know why you keep bringing the government into it.

LeaveMyWings I am intrigued that my questioning what Britishness (and Christianity) actually means and asking for more acceptance (not an unreasonable request) seems to have been interpreted by you as "let's throw the doors wide open and let them come and take everything". Stop projecting your own insecurities about invading hoardes (or hordes) please.

It's a perfectly reasonable point, CoteDAzur. In societies where women are less visible and public life is largely the domain of men, they're the ones who become targets, who are hauled off in the middle of the night for interrogation and torture. Of course women and children are vulnerable in lots of different ways in conflict zones. But in terms of suddenly having to flee to evade capture, it tends to be men who are most involved. It's a side effect of male privilege.

"I see the point about the young men being fit enough to travel etc but then can't square that up with them leaving their wives/mothers/daughters to their fate"

Women & children are not left in war zones but in refugee camps in Turkey or Lebanon, for example.

They are not that stupid, would you believe.

This isn't a problem we can face by just "allowing" loads of people to flow in uncontrolled. It needs huge amount of resources to ensure they are properly integrated in civil society and the question is, do we have the cash to do so and if so, where is it coming from?

But it isn't a problem that we can escape through geography and luck, if for no other reason that we can't just leave the problem to countries like Greece, Croatia and Hungary.

No, it's not, Cel.

and I said, quite clearly, the people on MN. I don't know why you keep bringing the government into it

Because random people on MN don't actually have any power to let anybody into the country.

soveryupset your post paints a terrifying picture

tiny sleepy rural villages transformed in refugee camps with huge piles of litter, overcrowding and very real safety problems. Girls and women are now having to walk around always accompanied as rape and violent attacks on women is a daily reality - as is pretty crime. Let's not even go near what is going in hospitals and schools - it makes my heart bleed - it feels like the country has been abandoned to rot in hell. I had once the misfortune to go to A&E with my son and would not even begin to describe what I saw

This isn't a problem we can face by just "allowing" loads of people to flow in uncontrolled. It needs huge amount of resources to ensure they are properly integrated in civil society and the question is, do we have the cash to do so and if so, where is it coming from?

well said

What I don't understand is why all these young men aren't prepared to fight to defend their own country. Yes, its unpleasant, war is dangerous, but imagine if our grandfathers and great grandfathers had simply run away, leaving their families behind, in the world wars. Maybe they could have gone to the US and simply started a new family. Is it a military problem? Remember the Libyan soldiers who were stationed over here to be trained to go back and fight in their own country, and the initiative had to be ended because some of them committed rape (including male rape) in the local community?

I assume the young male refugees who do have wives and children and parents back home will be exercising their right to family life under the ECHR once they achieve asylum status and bringing their families over. The right to family life to some extent means that its only necessary to send over one family member in the beginning if the whole family ultimately wants to emigrate. Much of the ECHR case law is based around male immigrants, or men who have married women from a less privileged culture, had children with them and who then claim that their wife has to be allowed resident status because she needs to look after the children so the man can work. Its quite a sexist, old-fashioned way of looking at things.

The male privilege that gives them the right to the first seats on a train out of Hungary, leaving women and children patiently hiding at the back of the scrum.

Half the people in refugee camps are children. How many of you would take your babies in a dangerous trip across Europe with no guarantee of food or shelter and at risk of dying? Not many. Wouldn't you rather send your eldest boy or your husband?

What few people have grasped I think is that this is only the beginning. Yes there are refugees but the distinction between refugee and migrant is pretty thin. Sure, you might not be afraid of actual persecution, but your town has been bombed to shit, the fields are full of mines and the sewers and electricity are broken? You're technically a migrant but yes, you're a refugee.

What's changed is communications - everyone has a smartphone and can see what life is like elsewhere, and swap tips about how to get from a bad place to a better one - and travel infrastructure. When the Dublin Convention was drafted, these conditions weren't there and refugee/migrant flows were low. Nowadays they are, and millions are on the move. No-one can blame them, but our thinking about this Great Migration needs to reflect the fact that this isn't a one-off but a by-product of globalisation. Countless millions of people in countries with poor resources, weak governance, oppressive laws or conflict see that life is better elsewhere and they all want to go to where that is the case. Who can blame them? And with social media to swap tips, cars and trains and planes to get there, and a bit more money than pure subsistence economies now they can try.

Mass migration is the new normal, and it's not going to go away if and when Syria stabilises. Our politicians need to quite the moral posturing and level with us about this.

How people feel about that will vary, but simply shouting down or insulting those with concerns about maintaining a culture or way of life is not enough. We need a realistic discussion about what it means for our nation, for the EU, for all of us if, say, a billion people can suddenly afford to attempt the journey to Europe. You may think I'm exaggerating g but I don't think I am. If we agree that's fine as the European birthdate is declining then great. Or people might object. What's important though is that we need to have a frank conversation about it without the moralising and insults that generally start to fly around this subject.

Little too right I'm projecting my insecurities about the long term future for western European (and particularly British) culture, values and economic stability although you won't hear me using rhetoric like 'invading hordes'.

The OP used the word 'invaded' I didn't.

My family are dispersed all over Europe.
Then you should know better.
The individuals didn't care where they ended up.
Actually many of them did.
Get a history lesson or two before using these arguments.

Yes, it's the beginning because there are about 2 million refugees in camps. As many countries as possible should be taking them.
Still, 2 million is not that much for the European population. We can't cope easily with all at the same time, but we can cope with that number over a period of time.

And the solution lies in peace in Syria and other countries.

sovery if you ate saying that rapes and attacks on women have gone up significantly since the arrival of the migrants in your country of origin, to yhe point where women cant go out alone, when once they could, then that is the fault of the migrants. They have brought with them a belief that women are 'less' and are refusing to respect the laws of the country they are now in!

What I don't understand is why all these young men aren't prepared to fight to defend their own country. Yes, its unpleasant, war is dangerous, but imagine if our grandfathers and great grandfathers had simply run away, leaving their families behind, in the world wars.

Who do you suggest the Syrian refugees fight for? The Assad regime? Isis? The FSA? Who are chronically under-resourced and being pulverised day by day?

Comparing the Syrian conflict to either of the world wars is just meaningless - it's not the case of an interstate war between well-established and unified regimes. If you were British in WW1 or 2 you were part of a society geared towards total war with a highly disciplined top-down mode of governance.

That's not the case here. Instead, it's a messy, intrastate war in Syria and Iraq with a variety of competing groups claiming sovereignty. It's not clear what 'Syria' is, certainly not in the same way that 'Britain' or 'Germany' was during the world wars.

Because random people on MN don't actually have any power to let anybody into the country.

Oh well in that case there's no point discussing any of it, is there? Let's just have no opinion on anything social or political whatsoever because the government has already decided what its stance will be so there's no point in challenging it, or arguing with those who would challenge it. That'll should make for a quiet Mumsnet then.

Good post othehuge