To think that the 'Calais Camp' situation needs to be resolved ASAP!

[Kreacherelf]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413566/Port-Calais-closed-migrants-storm-harbour-make-Spirit-Britain-ferry-desperate-bid-reach-UK.html

This is just getting ridiculous now. France need to take this problem to the EU and ask for help dealing with it immediately. It has gone on for too long and needs to stop.

I don't know what the answer is. I think the UK should take anyone under 18, and their family members. Other than that, everyone else should have to apply for asylum in France or risk arrest. Not a perfect solution, but the only one I have.

How do you think the Nazis would have dealt with the situation tangerine? Just so I can understand the parallels in your mind.

SirChenjin the big parallel is not so much what the Nazis have done but how refugees who fled the Nazis were treated and talked about.

Please state exactly what the parallels are with Nazi Germany.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

I have to go out now but I'll pop back later with some thoughts if you like. I work directly with asylum seekers and suffice to say most of them are fine; some lovely, some arseholes. Do I believe what they tell me about what's happened to them? Not often. Do I empathise with their wish for a better life? Yes, more often than not. Do I think it's acceptable to deceive your way in to a country? Not usually. Do I think it's acceptable to try and claim asylum by deception? No. Do I blame them for trying? Not at all

LumelaMme you misunderstand my point about language.

I am not saying the people here are stating ALL refugees are savages for example, nor am I debating the truth or otherwise of each individual statement.

I have taken things out of context, yes, because what I am doing is drawing attention to the kind of language being used and the overall impression it gives.

Using negative language in association with a group of people - even if you don't make a logical argument for a connection between the two - is one way people can be demonised. The media does it all the time.

People don't necessarily remember the exact phrases used, but nevertheless a connection in their brain has been made between refugees and rapists or whatever.

It doesn't matter that the poster wasn't saying that ALL refugees were savages. It matters that such use of negative language isn't rare - it's constant and taken together, serves to paint an ugly and distorted picture, and you end up with victim blaming and a lack of compassion like we are seeing on this thread.

I don't see it like that at all tangerine and I haven't seen or heard one example in the media of refugees being called 'savages'. Just yesterday I had the BBC news on and was irritated anew by their pro-migrant reporting, so sappy and emotive in tone (going on YET AGAIN about 'desperate people' and their 'desperate plight', etc). The media is waaaay more left-wing than most public opinion is on this issue, which is hardening as a result of the cold, hard reality of the situation. Of course people shouldn't be demonised, but I don't believe the media is doing so - if anything its the opposite.

The BBC reporting makes me annoyed and I shout at the tv. It is so emotive and left wing.

Some of the people we are discussing are liars like the young men who pretend they are teenagers in our education system but he ho. I do understand to some extent as they may need an education. There is also some deception about addresses to get the dc into the good schools. I have even heard from a reliable source about 11+ exams being taken at the mosque rather than the school by older sibblings/friends to ensure a place for the 11 year old at the good school out of the borough even though they are not up to scratch.

tangerines, to a point I agree with you: words can end up being linked to particular groups of people by implication. And it's insidious and very hard to argue against. Much, much harder to argue against than actual inaccuracy.

However, if SOME people in a group have acted violently, are we banned from using the term 'violent thugs' to describe that subgroup? Or do we have to pussyfoot around it? And if we did pussyfoot around it (by saying, for example, 'I'm opposed to letting in men like those violent thugs who assaulted women in Cologne') you can just bet which words would be pulled out of context.

In fact, by ascribing those quotes and not-quite-quotes to 'this thread', you are doing just what you accuse those posters who oppose you of doing: you're implying that we're all dehumanising refugees. Not actually saying so, of course, but planting that idea.

And that's despite the fact that various posters have argued that the humane thing to do is to discourage people from risking their lives by crossing the Med - because, you know, we see them as, er, human.

Anne Frank's stepsister has spoken about this recently, comparing the treatment received by Syrian refugees to that of Jews fleeing the Nazis.

Okay tangerines, how about this. The Nazi's gave privileges to certain groups based on race. When regulating relations between races they created a situation where crimes committed by one race upon another were minimised, denied, excused and justified based on the races of those involved. Punishments were far harsher for those seen to be attacking the favoured race.

They classed one race as greedy, over privileged and acquisitive, profiting financially at the expense of the favoured race, and justified attacks on the entire unfavoured race because of this.

All of the above can be seen happening now in Europe, but the favoured are no longer Europeans, but the migrants.

Look at the political response to the train station attacks this morning. Immediate, loud condemnation. Unequivocal description of who committed the crimes and who they were committed against (children). Definitive statements about the causes and who is to blame. (Racism, racists). Immediate condemnation and a rush for justice.

Compare that to Cologne were it was hushed up, minimized. The people who committed it deliberately blurred and denied. Justice having to be forced. Any cultural issues or issues of prejudice suppressed.

It's really, really not that hard to see incidents where people in Europe are being treated differently on the basis of their race just like the Nazis did. But often it's not quite how you'd like to think it is.

The closest I have actually seen to a Nazi policy being advocated on here has been the suggestion that some people should have properties they own confiscated to be given to refugees. Because the greedy rich and privileged should have their properties confiscated to be given to the deserving and virtuous members of the favoured race. And that is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Godwin's Law can't be thrown around as simplistically any more. Our situation is a lot more complicated.

And incidentally, I don't think you'll find many accounts of Jews committing mass murder of civilians in concert halls, offices, supermarkets, tube trains or doing much beheading of charity workers, shopping centres, stations, kidnapping and raping schoolgirls, blowing up ancient treasures or.......shall I just stop now? I think I've made my point.

Anne Frank's stepsister compared Donald Trump's policy of closing the border to migrants to Hitler. She didn't say anything about Syrians in Europe being treated like Jews. Stop lying.

So can everyone remind me again ...how many Syrian refugees are in the camps at Calais?
How many of the ones in Germany and Sweden etc are Syrian?
(And to be honest whatever the figures are they are likely to be an over estimation as fake Syrian ID will be available)

Can we try and not get confused between Syrian refugees, asylum seekers from other nations and economic migrants/chancers?

And I agree the criticism of dehumanising language could also be used to describe the overly emotive language and constant referrals to 'Syrian refugees' of the pro-immigration side...

I believe supporting people in the neighbouring camps is the best thing we can do BUT (arguing against myself!) there is one possible problem with this approach that no-one (I can recall) has pointed out - even though they are drawing parallels to the Holocaust.
We must protect the camps - if necessary with troops on the ground - and pledge to do so.
A lot of the Jews that fled Germany ended up in countries that were later invaded and so became victims of the Nazi's anyway. The number of Jews in Germany in the early 1930s was just over 0.5 million (before any mass emigration) and around 6 million died in the Holocaust. The majority that died were not German Jews.... they were from neighbouring countries...

"Chancer" of course is another instance of dehumanising language. As actually is "migrant". Just try replacing the word "migrants" with "people". Which is what they are, and those who are anti-migration want you to forget.

Most of us always try to remember the past. Do remember what many of the jews did here too (not the ultra orthodox but many of the others) - the adopted UK attitudes, they changed their names to fit in, the accepted with enthusiasm English customs and mores on the whole, they wanted to fit in and become to a large extent like us. I do not see that amongst some of those who come here from abroad - yes some do and some don't and one reason Jewish immigration here has worked so well is that either (a) they became like us or (b) they kept to themselves as in Stamford Hill and never caused us any trouble and were good citizens (as indeed as many muslims in the UK).

I do accept the point above that to prefer Syrians over UK people who want a council home is certainly analagous to Nazis preferring one group over another. The UK white working class who tend to be the ones who suffer from immigrants in cities and are key voters are affected whereas Labour Islington lot like Corbyn in their ivory towers and £1m houses are not. It is easy to be magnanimous when you earn a lot and have a home and your children can get jobs.

The US is moving towards not insisting Assad goes. Assad turned up to the recent UN talks and the other side have suggested they will soon too so some kind of brokered deal may be possible. Sending Syrians to a Scottish island was not a bad move as it is the spreading and diluting of refugees which ensures English culture and our feminism and anti homophobia is preserved does work. The problem is once people get on their feet they want to move not just where they are safe from bombs but to where their compatriats are which is big cities where here is massive pressure on schools and housing. It is almost impossible to buy a home under £400k never mind get a council house anywhere near where I live (outer London) as we have never had so many people living there ever. We have more beds in sheds even than any other London borough. We are bursting at the seams - we live peacefully together and people work very hard with good family values in part because we have more people married than most other places in London. Bringing lots of single uneducated teenagers into a region with no parents to keep them in line can cause trouble and the UK is wise to avoid it.

Perhaps we should start by taking in children under 10 who have no family in the UK and no relatives abroad to support them and can find a UKfamily to take them in at no cost to the state. The British people did somethign similar during WWII. The recent obituary of that Jewish publisher (Weidenfeld?) said he was eternally grateful to the Brethern family who took him when he fleed the Nazis alone in and he made a huge contribution to the UK . It was one reason why in his 90s he was helping Syrian children out.

LumelaMme I am addressing those posters who have used this language, and trying to show the effect of such language, how it can be part of a bigger picture and can end up dehumanising people.

So, of course it's fair enough to use the word "violent thugs" to describe people who have used violence against others for no justifiable reason.

And yes, talking about helping people stay alive by preventing them risking their lives is fair enough of course.

But it's about the bigger picture. What are people choosing to focus on? The genuine refugees or the chancers? The terrible conditions or victim blaming? The small numbers of perpertrators of violence among the refugees or the many many victims of violence?

The thing is, many of those here who are supporting things like helping refugees nearer their countries of origin (in itself a good idea) or stopping people getting into boats in the Med, aren't using language that is sympathetic. They're not empathising and saying awful it must be to flee war, how the actions of refugees are understandable, that obviously they want the best for their DC, how traumatised many of them must be, how terrible it is people are exploited by people smugglers.

Instead, many people are saying or implying negative statements such as the refugees are economic migrants who recklessly and selfishly put their children in danger in the persuit of money, that they will be a danger if they get to British soil.

So forgive me if I assume, that when people who the motives for wanting help nearer to Syria are not necessarily borne of a genuine desire to help other people in awful circumstances.

unlucky, very good point. Anne Frank was actually a German refugee in the Netherlands which was invaded by the Nazis. Which touches on something I've said several times about there being no point giving people refuge if what they are running away from follows them.

Which is why I think the UK policy of admitting the most vulnerable groups whose IDs are verified in is far better than the European policy of just letting in all comers with no idea which side they're on.

DG2016 the UK where not as welcoming of Jewish refugees as many would like to think now. Indeed they were met with the same attitude as asylum seekers are met today.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/08/our-treatment-todays-refugees-harks-back-europes-darkest-hour

"Chancer" of course is another instance of dehumanising language. As actually is "migrant". Just try replacing the word "migrants" with "people". Which is what they are, and those who are anti-migration want you to forget.
Oh, the only word we may now use is 'people'?

I'm not a fan of unfettered migration. This is partly because I do not forget that migrants are people who will require houses, school places and medical care. People who arrive with their own ideas about the world and SOME of whom MAY not assimilate into European culture.

So forgive me if I assume, that when people who the motives for wanting help nearer to Syria are not necessarily borne of a genuine desire to help other people in awful circumstances.
Reasons for helping refugees in camps nearer to their home countries:

1. Saves them making dangerous journeys which cost them all their money (thus potentially saving their lives)
2. Will make it easier in the future for them to return home
3. Will make it easier in future for their home countries to be rebuilt (because Europe hasn't snaffled all their educated people)
4. It's a more cost-effective use of aid money (I would imagine: I don't have a source for that, but it's probably cheaper to erect prefab housing in Turkey than in Germany or the UK).
5. It saves European services and European society having to try and cope with a huge and sudden influx of people, which may prove politically and socially destabilising.

BTW, is 'refugees' a dehumanising term? Or is that permitted in this new Orwellian society on this thread?

All radical off shoots from religions rely on dehumanisation, simply because all religions rely on a patriarchal viewpoint, radicalism simply expands and entrenches this.

There is no denying that there are very few women and children in Calais. There are different camps, depending on what country/culture/religion you come from.

Calais is a mess and the reason this mess has occurred is because those living there want to come to the UK. Most have been smuggled there under false pretences and having spent family money getting to a smelly, inhospitable place. Of course they are angry.

Plus Calais has always had a migrant crisis, it's not a new phenomenon.

Widow that article conveniently ignores the fact that what we are doing now is exactly what we should have done in the 1930s. Taken those most at risk (in the 1930s Jews, Roma, the disabled, gays. Today Yazidi, Christian, the sick, sexual violence victims, gays) and bringing them here.

If we had adopted the EU policy of opening our doors to any German, without even checking if they were Nazi sympathisers; nobody can seriously doubt that the Nazis wouldn't have taken full advantage of that to weaken us to such a point our defeat would have been inevitable and Europe overrun. I don't expect the Russians would have beaten the Nazis either in a war with only one front, so we'd probably be living in a largely Nazi Eurasia today.

The word 'migrant' is dehumanising language? FGS get off your politcally-correct, nonsense-filled soapbox. The word 'migrant' is a factual term and it perfectly describes anyone who is moving from one country to another. If you don't believe me, take a look in an English dictionary. I've read some utter tripe on this thread, but that comment takes the biscuit.

Widow I'm reminded of the Huguenots. Up to 50,000 were allowed into England at that time by Charles II. Clearly, the population of England was much smaller then (though one could argue that per capita it was a generous decision on behalf of Charles), but they did quietly assimilate into the community without losing identity or culture.

Oh, yeah, and this too:
What are people choosing to focus on? The genuine refugees or the chancers? The terrible conditions or victim blaming? The small numbers of perpertrators of violence among the refugees or the many many victims of violence?
These threads began because of the Cologne attacks, which do appear to have been committed mostly by migrant men. So, not surprisingly, the focus keeps on returning to migrants.
Victim blaming? I seem to recall a degree of victim blaming of the women in cologne, in the early stages of this whole sorry saga.
Victims of violence? No one wants to minimise what genuine refugees have gone through, but lets not forget the assaulted women in all this.

At least you do now seem to admit that amongst the people who have come to Europe this past year or so there are some 'chancers'.

Meant to post a link regarding the Huguenots.

www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/london/article_1.shtml