Was Cameron right to reject calls to open borders?

[StorminaBcup]

Before I say anything else, I have not started this thread to be goady, xenophobic, racist, intolerant although I suspect I am ignorant of what are perhaps finer details.

In view of the events in Paris, Brussels, Nice and now Munich, (and suggestions that some of the attackers had entered the countries as refugees / migrants ); was Merkel right to open Germany's borders or was Cameron right to resist the pressure to do the same?

I'm torn. On the one hand it's a humanitarian catastrophe, something should have been done sooner and to deny help to thousands of refugees is unthinkable. But, I'm now wondering if those countries who were insistent on papers (but were accused of bottle-necking the process by stopping trains) were actually right too. I realise a paper-documenting exercise is also futile in a lot of situations so I'm not even sure that would've helped.

I know these things are never black and white but I've read some really interesting discussions on here so I'm curious to see what others think.

storm think its a series and think it was on BBC1

they are in a huge camp near the border. It was overcrowded,yes,but they have it sorted. schools and hospitals etc. can't help but feel it better they were all there together than dispersed through Europe feeling alone/alienated

i truly feel for these poor people and wish we could help them rebuild their lives in their country

I personally wouldn't class people from Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and Syria as economic migrants...

Well refugee status isn't a personal classification.

It's a legal one.

Not everyone from every one of those countries qualifies for asylum.

If they did, the asylum system would be finished.

What you want is comoletely open borders and no ability for countries to protect thrmselves from war and social breakdown in other countries.

Which will most badly affect developing countries and their populations.

So it's a morality that's easy to preach.

No, I want safe passage for refugees to be able to travel safely. Our borders should be open to refugees.

I agree that open borders are not a good idea but all of those responsible were refugees. The Nice guy had a dual French/ Tunisian nationality. Many of these terrorists are home grown.

It was overcrowded,yes,but they have it sorted. schools and hospitals etc. can't help but feel it better they were all there together than dispersed through Europe feeling alone/alienated

Yes I saw it. I was hugely impressed. Very impressed. It was so well run, the humanity there, from the refugees but also the ideas behind some ventures. Ie a supermarket and money so they can choose their food and have choice, the bread delivery and the pride taken in that process. It was hygienic and offered surely the best sense of community, identity and safety. Excellent hospital facilities and access to medical care.
TBH it was more cheery and pleasant than some of our run down high streets in very poor areas where they might be housed.

Our borders should be open to refugees.

They are.

We are taking refugees from the camps.

I accept there are problems with the fast-tracking of refugees from the Syrian conflict and a two-tier system devoping where refugees from Africa are treated less favourably than their more media-friendly counterparts.

There also appears to be some gaming of even this system by people of means to jump queues using their money and connections.

But refugees are being accepted into the UK.

Ergo, the borders are not closed to refugees.

Cameron was right to provide more support than any other EU member state for people in the camps abroad.

He was right to follow the law.

Also Germany has a dropping population and needs large numbers of young people to work and pay tax. The UK has a grown population.

Finally the UK gets about 200,000 net immigrants from the other 27 EU states and year and 200,000 from outside the EU so we hardly have closed bordersas it is and we have a huge "over stayers" problem where people get a visa to study or have a holiday here and then disappear into the country and work illegally. That over stayer problem has always been a much bigger problem than people coming illegally but gets no press. My borough in London has more beds in shed in gardens than any other London borough and we are filled to the seams with all kinds of people including minority whites, legal and illegal immigrants and British born non whites.

Yeah, how dare we like to remain safe and secure. How very dare we!

Is our right to remain "safe and secure" more important than refugee's rights to seek safety and security? Because we had the fortune to be born into a country which is relatively safe, is it ethically right to raise up the drawbridge and deny entry to others who are desperately seeking that security?

It is a difficult issue and whilst I accept there are no simple answers, I would always like to err on the side of compassion and generosity, rather than self protectionism. If that is even a word.

FruitCider

"No, I want safe passage for refugees to be able to travel safely. Our borders should be open to refugees."

Merkel herself admitted - ten days ago - that terrorists smuggled themselves in with the refugees, from whom they were indistinguishable: www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-extremists-merkel-idUSKCN0ZR1AH.

Three days ago, an Afghan/Pakistani refugee went on a murderous rampage with an axe on a train in Germany: www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/82279505/Islamic-State-flag-found-in-room-of-German-train-axe-attacker

Opening the borders to "refugees" is suicidal when you can't be sure who is a genuine refugee and who is a terrorist.

Oakmaiden

"Is our right to remain "safe and secure" more important than refugee's rights to seek safety and security? Because we had the fortune to be born into a country which is relatively safe, is it ethically right to raise up the drawbridge and deny entry to others who are desperately seeking that security?"

"I would always like to err on the side of compassion and generosity, rather than self protectionism"

In a word, yes it bloody well it is, and you have no right to sacrifice the safety of others on the altar of your personal "generosity".

Is our right to remain "safe and secure" more important than refugee's rights to seek safety and security?

Obviously.

Because the second thing can't happen without the first.

If we are no longer safe and secure, thatvis one less place where they can find asylum.

Allowing abuse of the asylum system, such as deciding that everyone from a list of countries must be a genuine refugees, means that you are likely to ve offering the people the refugees are fleeing from asylum before their victims can even get here.

Nor everyone from Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Syria, Iraq is an innocent victim.

Pretty much self evidently.

The refugees are running from some pretty bad people doing some awful things.

There have been 132 terrorist attacks since 1st July 2016. Why are people only bothered about the ones in Europe (and therefore white countries) I wonder?

Why are people only bothered about the ones in Europe (and therefore white countries) I wonder?

When you say "people", surely you can't mean "white people"?

the terrorists knew if they bombed the syrian families that this would happen....they would flee to the west....so then they would be brought in to safety bringing with them a new generation of terrorists. but also,getting a good foothold in Europe,raising families and establishing themselves. then they can continue in the crusade to takeover and eliminate western ideals...spread Islam in the west with bomb attacks etc if we resist

this is my neighbours theory. He's an Iranian refugee

When you say "people", surely you can't mean "white people"?

No, systemic racism goes further than that. Why is the world only bothered about while people being killed in terrorist attacks? And why are white people that carry out terry at attacks only referred to as having " terrorist like tactics"?

Thing is, Britain isn't "safe" because we didn't "open borders" to the refugees at a time when other parts of Europe did. We haven't had a significant attack in recent years because our intelligence services have worked very hard to make that the case - and because we have been lucky. 7 plots targeting the UK have apparently been disrupted in the past 18 months.

So really the argument is - do we shut all refugees out because there might (OK, will) be a very small minority of people who mean us harm. Or do we accept that there are people who mean us harm - they are already here, they will come amongst the refugees and they will come anyway, with or without refugees - and do what we can to lessen the plight of other humans.

Which stance will cause the greatest good? Or least harm? Personally I think slamming up the shutters causes more harm than would be caused by allowing movement and settlement of refugees. Because the terrorists are already here. I know where I stand. You clearly know where you stand. I would love to see some actual unbiased statistics on the matter, but I am not aware of any, so I have to just hold my opinion and hope the policy makers are better informed than I am. And that they actually care about people other than their voters.

OakMaiden thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. I'm literally sat here packing aid to take to Calais. I'm so upset that people could even view migrants as an under class as such.

Oakmaiden you are right and I agree with what you are saying but (as someone mentioned upthread), the refugee crisis has also allowed far-right parties across Europe to use this to gain votes or have an upsurge in popularity. The brexit campaign and that fascist poster as a recent example, and, as it's now transpiring the attacks in Munich.

There's seems to be no solution.

Why is the world only bothered about while people being killed in terrorist attacks?

Again, how are you defining "the world" here?

The question is not should we take refugees or shouldn't we.

Of course we should. And we must.

The question is how do we run our aylum system such that it provides the greatest amount of succour to the people who need it and are entitled to claim it?

It is far from a simple and straightforward matter.

Oakmaiden - "And that they actually care about people other than their voters"

If they do, they'd better get ready for unemployment.

As someone who fosters I think he was 100% correct in regards to taking the children

We simply do not have enough foster carer for children born in the uk hence the awful stories of children having so many moves and that's often because sw beg foster carers they agree but usually only for a very limited period

I know that when a child is due to come into care a sw often can bet sitting all day leafing through the FC directory begging Somone to take the children often siblings are split because FC don't have enough room

The refugee minors would not be babies or small children they would be teens and I sure we all understand how difficult it is for sw to find somewhere for British teens to live let alone refugee teens who may or may not actually even be the age they claim

I know many FC who now refuse to take refugee children because ss methods of verifying age is Inadqute and it can have huge cp implications if you take in a 15 year old only to find out they are 20

We don't have children's homes in general any more and any young persons hostel that we do have have waiting lists the size of a ladder

I was quite bemused when all theses people pied up to offer the poor children on the boats homes

Only to go very quite when they realised

You would first have to become a foster carer witch can take up to a year
And there would be no cute babies it would be teenagers and male mines at that

There is also somthing to say the ones who have fled are not the ones who need our help

If you can find thousands to pay sumgglers to get out of Syria your likely to be ok

It's the poor those with mental health issues disabled who will be stuck in the camps