The situation with migrants and illegal immigration

[Gingermakesmesick]

What is the answer?

I would hate to be in the position of making the decision because I hate to think of how desperate the individuals concerned must be.

But I can also quite see that there simply isn't the physical room to allow all of them into the UK, or the resources.

What is the answer? Is there no answer?

They have all passed through safe countries. Demanding to get to certain countries is outrageous.

I agree about the use of the word temporary. Temporary until... what?

I'm happy with women and children coming and being temporary asylum, but the able bodied men (and any women if they wish) would be armed and trained and returned to Syria as part of a EU army sent in to stabilize the country.

Our grandparents weren't able to run away from fighting for their families, the UK and other EU countries have been built on fighting for our freedom.

I heard on the news today that kent SS are already looking after 700 children that have arrived alone.
imagine the numbers that SS across the south would be faced with. will the government then up their already slashed budgets?? or will they have to cut other costs to meet the needs?

Superb post, SnowBells - you explain very accurately the difference between the situation now and the possible long term effects of unlimited migration

Surely we should be looking at the source of problem and helping them to stay in their own countries.

Here's a simple calculation to show why Germany can play the moral high ground card.

Germany
Population 2004: 82,516,260
Population 2014: 80,889,505

10- Year Difference: -1,626,755

United Kingdom
Population 2004: 59,987,905
Population 2014: 64,510,376

10- Year Difference: + 4,522,471

Given that Germany's population declined by 1.6m over 10 years, it isn't surprising they're willing to take in 800k refugees this year. It wouldn't really have an impact on their infrastructure as they have had more people just 10 years prior. Theoretically, they could take at least double the amount they said they would.

And again:

• Germany has a higher land mass, better infrastructure, much more dispersed population.
• Germany doesn't have an obsession with houses. People are fine living in flats. They don't have a housing crisis.

It is easier for them to do what they would like the UK to do.

These recent migratory events (economic, refugee, other migration) are part of wider globalisation and Western countries' relatively faster development than other. Humans do move to escape - but also stay behind and build. I do wonder if the current migratory patterns exemplify the fact that Western countries can offer the kind of life that other countries can't (not perfect, but better)? It's fairly obvious that crackpot religions, irrational beliefs, and failed economic decisions and political systems have contributed to the huge waves of migration. We need to be blunt about the fact that life, for most people around the globe, is crap, and despite the problems with capitalism, neo-liberal democracies offer one way of living out your life in relative comfort (and of course it's all relative, and yes, we can argue forever about just how democratic, poor, rich, liberal Western cultures are). Who wouldn't want that? The developing world nations may develop in a different direction to the West's in the future, but currently, the chasm between the two is vast, and yet is played out on a daily basis through globalisation (technology, travel, ideas). Can everyone move here? No. Can we help development in the migrants' own countries? No - doesn't seem to work as a) corruption b) can't force regime change c) Western countries' politicians will take advantage. I have no solutions. I do wonder though, when I see the great sea of people, the migrants, in the press, if they could/should stay and force their own political and economic changes to build a culture that they want to live in. Revolutions, slow cultural changes, development, can be a way forward but can take generations (and much bloodshed).

I hope no one minds if I ask a couple of questions about this situation but I am trying to understand more of what is going on.

1. Why are so many people coming now? It started off early summer with a few boats coming from North Africa but now we have thousands coming from all over. I know they are fleeing wars and IS but they have been happening for a while and its like whole towns and cities are all coming at once.

1. Why are the people in Hungary so adamant they don't want to go to camps where they can be processed?

I apologise if these questions have already been raised on here.

Development can happen and in addition to your points there has been a lot of meddling by the west in africa. Some countries are unviable as they have no/little resources are arbitrary countries created by europe.

A fair bit of development was well intentioned but misguided, have heard many tale of a waterpump being installed, no maintenance fund, village waits expectantly for white people to come back and fix the pump 'they' put in, or the guy they trained to maintain the pump has buggered off to the city to get a job.

World bank etc telling african countries to grow flowers etc bad season and or global oversupply, people starve as the forex they expected diminishes. During the famine in Ethiopia there were crops in the south that could have been transported north but well intentioned food was brought elsewhere driving the maize price down and bankrupting rural farmers.

Its only recently that these mistakes are being acted on.

We cried wolf in Iraq and failed to act in Syria and now reap the real consequences.

Moreshabby

1. The situation in Syria is getting more dire by the day. Damascus has nearly completely fallen into the hands of ISIS, and Syria is essentially a failed state. ISIS is not trying to convert territories, but entirely massacres or enslaves the population, so they have no option but to flee. Although about 80% of refugees would normally go to their neighbouring country, there is a danger of further military successes by ISIS, so the farther away the safer. The same must be happening in Iraq, and Afghanistan has never really recovered from our help either. Don't know about Eritrea.

1. In the Schengen security zone in Europe - which includes e.g. France Hungary and Germany, but not the UK - refugees have to get registered in the country where they enter the EU, in this case Hungary. When they apply for refugee status e.g. in Germany or the UK, they have the right to send them back Hungary, as they were first registered there. The moves made by the Hungarian government are incompetent and hasty, but the bigger countries are disingenuous blaming everything on them. Just like with Greece, it is fun to bully the poor.

Hungary does have a nasty right-wing Cameron-loving government, but the country is also very poor. And not empty like some previous posters suggested. With a population of 10 million, they cannot successfully absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees.
The Hungarian population also view Islam differently, as the country was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for 165 years. Popular historical literature, compulsory in primary schools, still describe how the invaders enslaved the population and took local children into Anatolya and turned them into soldiers.

Thank you Ginger, but if Hungary don't want these people to stay why aren't they letting them go to Germany as most of them seem to want?

Well, looking back at history, countries in the developed world had to fight and develop the society that they have now (democracy, etc.). There were numerous rebellions, revolutions and bloodshed to get to where the West is now, for example:

France had the French Revolution that overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. The Boston Tea Party laid the groundwork for the American Revolution. The UK had the Glorious Revolution, which isn't quite the same, but replaced the reigning monarchs with a constitutional monarchy that set the path for democracy. Germany is slightly different - they lost two world wars, and due to the atrocities of WW2 are forever relegated to having to prove themselves to be the "good guys".

There have always been events that were 'transformational'. Had everyone just left the country, there would have been no revolution. I do believe that for a country to change, it has to go through that. It's a rite of passage of some sort. Simply put: there have to be a lot of people who are seriously p*ssed off and fought for something. Once you've won, you will have the determination to make what you fought so hard for succeed. But now that it's so easy to move around, people no longer do that.

How can countries move on without it though?

Moreshabby That is something I genuinely do not understand. I believe that there are things / background negotiations we do not know about. e.g. Germany welcomes the refugees, but they expect them to go through appropriate channels, i.e. have them in camps in Hungary first. Also Austrian authorities were very upset that the refugees were allowed to cross into their country. The German embassy to Budapest made a statement that Angela Merkel herself never said that the asylum rules for Syrian refugees have been relaxed. I really do not know what is going on other than the Hungarian government is trying to force the issue, and refugees are sadly just pawns in this power play.

SnowBells It is not a revolution when a foreign power overtakes your country and kills your countrymen. What ISISis doing reminds me of Hitler's lebensraum plans whereby slave nations would have been starved to death or relocated to mines in the Ural mountains.

Hopefully, one day Ginger it will all become clear but as for now I just wonder what the hell is going on! Thank you for your replies.

Update, as requested, for the person who suggested this

www.praxis.org.uk/preventing-destitution-page-59.html

organisation for me when I said I would happily have a Syrian family stay with me in my house. I had to have the email me with the FAQ page because I couldn't open it but anyway it seems they find accommodation for failed asylum seekers. I didn't want to house a failed asylum seeker because quite frankly I think they should go home if they have no claim.

I do have a spare room though that I would happily offer to a family fleeing Syria, I have looked before and can't find any organisations who do this. Anyone know of any?

ginger

I'm not talking about ISIS. I'm talking about the general population having to fight against these forces rather than just leave. How many men does ISIS have?

In 2013, Syria had 22.8 million people. If even just a fraction of them (maybe10%) created a united front against ISIS, they would stand a chance. As we can see with ISIS, military training is not actually that hard to come by.

If Britain was invaded by such a force, I hope there would be people who would fight rather than just flee.

Snowbells agree with you.

and TOTALLY agree with the always brilliant Andrew Pierce on this morning. (not like Kevin maguire who only knows how to roll his eyes and tut!)

the WORLD (as Obama takes selfies with bear grylls in Alaska and cant give a fig about europe) should be involved, the fittest strongerst men in Syria should stay and fight for their country, and why the hell are people risking their children on flimsy rubber dinghys when they could be going overland to Turskey and going on from there?

or staying in turkey?

and the SOURCE should be dealt with.

If that was me in that situation, I would NOT put my childrens lives in danger in a flimsy rubber dinghy. I would try on foot somewhere, and id rather be killed by a bomb than drowning.

and i cant believr im saying this but for ONCE i agree with D. cameron, letting people in all the time is NOT the answer.

thatsll just make the rest of the world keep coming, keep coming, and the countrys lierally going to sink underwater with all the weight of people.

theres homelessness, poverty, and food banks and unemployement high in the UK as it is.

the whole world needs to send its troops and wipe out these terrorists once and for all. its Hitler all over again.

(unfortunatley, theres always another madman ready to start another horriffic group of terrorists, i know.)

i dont know why europe has to take the problem. why not India, japan, China, theAustralia, the Americas, Greenland, the safe parts of Africa , Russia, etc etc etc. why arent they offering if anything?

and meanwhile the Calais lot are still coming in ellegally.

Becker You are naive about the horrors of ISIS. You might prefer to be killed by a bomb but you couldn't guarantee that you and your family would be killed. That would be the problem.

And do you have any idea what Turkey is like? Would you like them to eat cake while they're at it.

And if it's like Hitler all over again, Becker, are you saying that Britain should have closed its gates to Jews fleeing the holocaust?

Thanks for those numbers snowbells.

I think what a lot of people have forgotten (or perhaps don't realise), is that Angela Merkel is an extremely experienced and shrewd politician. She would not be inviting 800,000 Syrians to Germany this year if it wasn't in Germany's interest to take them. She's not in the business of global grand gestures, she's making calculations based on what her country needs and its starting to really piss me off that she's making it sound like Germany is 'doing its duty' while the rest of us aren't. If Britain or Spain or Hungary NEEDED settlers they would be making the same offer, I'm sure, but they don't and they'd rather help in other ways.

Snowbell (I love your name). We can only hope you are right. Britain's resilience against a land invasion has not been tested for hundreds of years. Thank God for the Channel.

Agree with snowbells - this is what I meant whenever I see the huge wall of people in the media. Together, organised in some sort of way, they would provide a formidable force against ISIS (but it's not only IS which is the the problem. The same solution applies to countries struggling against totalitarianism, theocracies, undemocratic principles, etc.) and would be able to effect other changes within their countries.

Agree with unwelcome meddling by countries (and Britain and America do seem to have a specific skill in agitating) although sometimes well-intentioned (e.g., not for profiteering). Iraq - horrific decision, although in different circumstances, the cost of doing nothing is turning away from terrible abuses. Someone upthread mentioned aid and development but that creates dependency so not ideal as a long-term strategy.

The only long-term solution that makes sense seems to be for migrants to remain in their countries of origin, engender their own changes and move forward that way. They will need to become creative and find their own solutions. Also, education of the general population is key, particularly, the education of women, both of which are correlated with many positive societal changes.