Do you think the EU should be funding proper boats to bring migrants to Europe safely?

[Ubik1]

Been Reading the coverage.

I think that morally we should help these people come to Europe safely where their application fur asylum can be processed properly.

We should fund boats that are seaworthy and take them to designated centres. Each country should take a proportion of migrants .

Surely that's the moral thing to do?

Are people more welcoming because they are not taking from the state but contributing? I do think the systems are wrong not the people - by looking at the real issues and tackling gov policies most people would change their focus from those who arrive in the UK - bad press doesnt help. You can not keep putting large numbers of imigrant into an area without adequate housing doctors schools etc and not expect locals to complain. But Mr rich turns a blind eye to the issues and blames racisium. Its not racist to want a decent school and doctors appointment -

Almost 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day.

Most are coping well, actually. But many would love to migrate to somewhere better.

1 million = just 0.05% of those living under $2/day.

I do so love it when people snipe at me (an immigrant) for supposed immigrant bashing.

I'm not sniping at you for immigrant bashing. I'm questioning your statistics.

mumtothree- I think here, it's at so much closer quarters IYSWIM? Here, literally, people wash up on the shore in boats (if they are lucky) So we see them. They aren't just hypothetical people "who will come if...."
Much harder for anyone with an ounce of humanity to start spouting anti-immigration "we can't coooooope" stuff when they aren't actually looking at a newborn baby being carried off a boat.

I've heard it suggested that the EU should just lay on a safe ferry service from Turkey & Libya & some other places.... IF it's believed that all needy people should have the right to come.

Does anyone disagree with the free safe ferry service?

So if u dock a free ferry to X how do u choose those that are in need and those chancing it? Who is then responsible? These people need somewhere to live possible medical care food jobs schools etc who pays? There must be somewhere safe that refugees could settle - but it seems such a huge issue. You may fix the problems short term for some but no long term for all.

Build great big processing centres, Australian style?
Rest of Europe pays,I suppose. IF you think all the needy deserve to come.
Safe ferries would mean they arrived with some money to invest and pay for themselves, too.

the only real solution is to sort out the problem which means all these people want to leave their countries. This means dealing with the despots, ending the ferocious religions, (including the child mortality and lack of contraception directly caused by them), providing education, clean water, health care and toilets, stopping the corruption and helping these countries to feed and run themselves.

pass the magic wand, I know - but that is how we make a better world.

That's right, special.

In an ideal world, borders would be open because most people would be happy to live where they have family and friends anyway and had decent living conditions there. But anyone who wanted to work and live elsewhere would be ok too. And I bet just as many UK citizens would want to go elsewhere as people would want to come to the UK.

Although that's an ideal situation, we should keep that in mind and think more of how to contribute to making living conditions in some countries better than on how to prevent a few boats full of migrants from reaching European shores.

Some really interesting articles relevant to this thread. In particular please take a look at this but also this and this

About earlier posts on the limits for the population that the UK, as an island, can house

Population density by country

Among developed countries, the UK has a similar population density to Germany, but almost half of the Netherlands, and much lower than Belgium, and lower than Japan.
It's not really bursting.

It is very busy where I live in the SE and congested. Why do we have to be crammed full of people in the UK? Germany has a much bigger landmass and do we want to become like Japan in respect of population density.

But other parts of the UK hardly have anyone there. It's the distribution that is the problem, along with poor planning.

Also the thing with density, is that the land mass becomes irrelevant.

And the Netherlands, would you say it's crammed?

I live in the Netherlands and yes, I would say it's pretty much crammed. Particularly in the Randstad area which is a massive urban conurbation.

That's not to say I disagree with immigration; I'm simply answering the question above.

I live in the Netherlands too,but not in the Randstad. It is not crammed here. It's like imagining that northumberland is stuffed with people because London is.

I think the major problem is none of us wants to face the fact that, worldwide, inequality is so great that we in Europe might have to faced reduced standards of living to tackle it.

It's never the really well off people who suffer though is it. Their living standards will not fall and they can live in huge gated houses and probably afford private schools etc. They may have private health care.

What about Greece should they have to take some people from Africa. Their economy is not good at all.

An immigrant is not someone who enters a country to take anything.
That person goes in to work and to spend money. That person will enter and pay taxes.
Unlike a newborn, who will spend anything up to 20 years not producing any income, but most people won't consider official limits on having children.

The Green's new proposal: everyone with a 3 bedroom house must take 2 migrants, everyone with a 4 bedroom house must take 3 migrants, ad infinitum.

Your name is first on the list Ubik1 - how does that make you feel?

I am not aware of large numbers of refugees trying to gain access to the wealthier nations of the Middle East. And why? Because they restrict entry to migrants with the skills and languages needed to fill vacant jobs. Lose your job and your residence permit is rescinded PDQ.

And if you are an observant Christian, you will not be permitted to worship in a church in the ME because their construction is not permitted, ditto Hindu temples, synagogues etc. I have no problem with immigration, but I feel that immigrants have a duty to follow the laws, norms and mores of the host country, and to conform to them.

And Saudi Arabia is a lot closer to most of sub-Saharan Africa than northern Europe!

You're suggesting we model European nation states on Saudi Arabia? I see no flaws in that plan. None.

There are just as many UK citizens leaving every year as there are people arriving, so the idea of a constant flooding into the UK of people is ridiculous.

I bet none of those posters who are saying "just turn them back" have ever been within 1000 miles of Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan etc. if you lived there with your family, you would be trying to get them to a safer, better life too.

There but for the grace of God....

cressetmama including changing your religion? Are you insane?

I have no problem with immigration, but I feel that immigrants have a duty to follow the laws, norms and mores of the host country, and to conform to them.

Well, of course they have to follow the laws.
As for norms and mores, what do you mean?
Religion, as above pp? Diet? Clothes? FGS.

I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia offers any kind of model one would wish to emulate, in any way whatever. Why would anyone wish to move to a country with a dominant religion stuck in the Middle Ages? But there are other Muslim countries with less strident views such as Oman for example which are settled, prosperous, and thinly populated. While Muslims are fleeing countries ravaged by revolution and civil war, such as Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Algeria, I don't see their welcome mat out.

The UK has been greatly enriched by waves of immigration throughout history, but the present number of refugees displaced by war and revolution would overwhelm the parts of Europe where migrants wish to go.

And I would prefer not to see Islamist extremists bombing the publishers of satirical magazines; I don't want Sharia law, female genital mutilation or halal butchery practices, if that's okay with MN. IMO anyone who wants to live here needs to be clear that they are joining an established secular liberal democracy. It's taken a long time to establish the rights and freedoms conferred by the Anglo-Saxon legal system. Let's be careful not to have it diluted by sentimental responses to news footage.

I think it's helpful for the discussion to be more precise as you have now been.
But you did mention Saudi Arabia. Why not Oman originally?