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.

[pleasemothermay1]

you cannot offer people who don't live in the country services that people who already live in the uk need but don't have access to

This is what the sandle wearing Notting hill lefties don't understand because if they need a service and they can't get it of the government they can afford to opt out and pay for it

All those people piped up said we will take a refugee but when they realised they would be footing the bill and could be for up to a few years all gone. Quite

[FruitCider]

The refugee minors would not be babies or small children they would be teens

Im sure the 8 year old unaccompanied child in Calais would disagree with your comment!

[Roonerspism]

What Cameron said was that refugees should be accepted directly from Syria instead of allowing the ones who have travelled to the EU to remain.

This was firstly because it encouraged unsafe border crossings, secondly because those most vulnerable are left behind and lastly because you then have economic migrants arriving from all over.

Of course he was right! Not one Syrian, as far as I'm aware, has carried out a single terrorist act. The attacks are either homegrown, or economic migrants from elsewhere. The attacks in Cologne were the same.

You will never hear any leftie bloody liberal, for one minute, considering the absolute lunacy of Merckel's actions. I stopped reading the Guardian after their coverage of the Cologne attacks. I wrote to tell them why, but strangely received nil response!

[DoinItFine]

You will never hear any leftie bloody liberal, for one minute, considering the absolute lunacy of Merckel's actions.

I'm a leftie bloody liberal, and you will hear me questioning both the motives and the wisdom of her actions.

[StorminaBcup]

FWIW I'm a 'lefty-liberal' too drew a line at the sandals though

My opinion of Merkel is that her actions contributed to more people wanting to make the unsafe crossing and therefore increasing the economics of those who run the boat-rackets.

[StorminaBcup]

By economics I mean demand goes up, prices go up and the most vulnerable are left behind.

[FruitCider]

secondly because those most vulnerable are left behind

Have you actually been to the camp in Calais? Many vulnerable people are there.

[AnaisWatterson]

I do think some would be more inclined to help the refugees if we hadn't had an influx of economic migrants. I get the two are hugely different, but in my area there's been an influx and it feels 'full'. I think that is the knock on affect.
I think Cameron was right, we need to help at the source, not encourage more to make that awful journey.

[Girlgonewild]

I know someone in Sweden who fosters refugees from Africa (and has her own children). She is a really good person but even she had problems with one of them who had to leave her care - these are all massive big teenage boys, not easy to take on, who have had huge problems in getting there in the first place.

We are doing a lot in the UK, probably as much as we reasonably can. We are a big donor of aid, more than most countries and should be patting ourselves on the back for that. The fact we cannot help 1m refugees in other parts of the EU is not our fault. All we can do is keep pressing on with aid where we can give it and try to ensure our interference abroad does not cause damage and minimise it.

I don't value whites over other lives. The small numbers killed in 9/11 are as nothing compared say to the slaughter by hutus of tutsis ( perhaps up to 1m people) in Rwanda never mind those killed abroad in other wars. A life is a life. There is nothing special about white lives or male or female or other lives - they are all lives. If we start from a basic premise that thou shalt not kill that is a pretty good starting point.

[pleasemothermay1]

poster FruitCider Sat 23-Jul-16 06:42:52

And considering it cheaper to send a child to eaton how exactly would we fund these children some are small children but most are teens or claiming tobe if your not sure check with Germany or Sweden

They have been inundated with teenage men boys hence that poor sw being children and pretty much wear house them as they have nowere for then to go

[FruitCider]

How can anyone even deny there are children in Calais? There is an 8 year old boy there with no parents or family for crying out loud. Go to the camps. See it with your own eyes.

I can't even be bothered to get angry anymore. All I can do is try and create awareness.

[FruitCider]

Sorry I've asked for the photos to be removed. It's not fair on the children. This thread is just making me so angry!

[StorminaBcup]

That's so sad fruitcider

[StorminaBcup]

This is what makes it so difficult; in trying to help refugees Europe has made itself appealing to migrants (perhaps chancing a refugee status in some instances) so the waters have been muddied. Those who desperately need the help now have to compete against numbers, and it skews perceptions of what people's experiences or beliefs of refugees is.

[FruitCider]

Bandaging up an 11 year olds hands (another unaccompanied minor) after he cut his hands on razor wire trying to get into the port broke me. Literally broke me. There are so many small children in Calais. The media just doesn't write about them. I was skeptical until I went and saw children drawing bombs and boats. Absolutely horrific. I really think people should go and have a look before being so judgemental.

[FruitCider]

I would like to see people in conflict zones given the ability to apply to a centralised asylum system, with refugee status confirmed then families allocated to either where they already have family or on a quota basis around the world. That would give people safe passage.

[AnaisWatterson]

My heart goes out to those unaccompanied children, I look at mine and can't even begin to imagine how they'd cope. They wouldn't.
There's no excuse for them to be there, especially when so many have extended family waiting.

[blaeberry]

Of course we shouldn't be taking the 8 year old in Calais - they are in France so the French social services should be taking care of them. They should not be in the camps. If the French are neglecting children in their county we should take it up with the French!

[FruitCider]

Why? What if the children have no family in France but extended family in uk? Surely reunification makes more sense?

[blaeberry]

In the meantime they should suffer in French camps? No! The French social services should be taking care of them and if they have a case for rejoining family in the uk then that should be processed from the safety of the French care system.

[Liz09]

Yes, he was right. His first priority was to protect the safety and welfare (social, economic and otherwise) of the people already living there.

I'm sure people want to tar and feather me for having the same opinion about Australia. Offshore processing is a good thing: it means that these refugees (many of whom are not legitimate - around 20%, at minimum) do not become our legal responsibility until they have been processed. The left thinks we should just allow them to waltz on in. And do what with them, for FFS? We are in an economic bind right now as our mining boom has ended; we have poor public transport meaning that the rural areas are totally disconnected from the cities which are over-populated; we have a housing crisis; we're struggling getting the people already here employed; the welfare budget is blown out every year; the healthcare system is already cracking under the burden of catering to the people here; there aren't enough public schools for the children needing to go to them etc. So where the bloody hell are we supposed to put tens of thousands (at least!) of people?! The left don't care as long as they're here though.

Not to mention the statistics that many of these groups of people are up to 5 times as likely to commit crimes than Australian-born people.

[pleasemothermay1]

poster FruitCider

Because you clearly have no idea how ss work they don't just had over children to relatives because they are related you first have to do an assment hence the work

kinship foster carer many relatives if they themslefs are unlawful or don't have the means to support these children would not past the assments

Any body who has tried to get a nephew or a cousin will testify to that if they then fail it will be down to ss to then home and support these children

As Somone above said France have a duty under law to look after minors

[pleasemothermay1]

Also I always curious these same people often moaning about Tory cuts how eveyone is on the brink of starvation in the uk

But we can afford thousands of refugees
Can't have it both ways