PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own

[cronus]

Most will end up in London. Make you think twice about catching a London bus given the rumours about ISIS infiltrating the refugees in large numbers?

[mistermack]

Yes, Peter Hitchens is a cunt. A mega-cunt. Doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.

Even Neil Kinnock was right about some things.

[Svartalf]

there's always the final type of solution to any such problem...

[cronus]

there's always the final type of solution to any such problem...

....the German mood would change quite quickly if they had a 9/11 of their own. Makes a fella wonder why the mussies ain't done a German biggie yet?

[Brian Peacock]

The reality is it wouldn't make much difference even if there was. They simply can't be stopped. The borders are more or less porous as things stand.

I suppose one solution is to fence a region in a ring of iron, either to contain or exclude, but we all know how that turns out in the end. The only reasonable solution is to bolster economic and democratic institutions in the regions people are fleeing; and for that to begin the conflicts need to stop; and for that to happen people have to stop selling guns and bullets while others, who think that using guns and bullets gets them what they want and bugger the consequences, have to change their mindsets; and for that to happen people need to be rational, thinking, tolerant human beings; and for that to happen they have to shake off the assumption that self-appointed authorities always know what's best for them.

[mistermack]

Take away the incentive. The incentive is to live and work in a richer country.
If you are having trouble policing the borders, you can police employment, with severe penalties for people employing illegal immigrants.

If the prospect of work is slim, they won't come. It's nothing to do with safety.

[JimC]

Is there some form of limit on the increase in refugee numbers, beyond which serious economic, environmental and social damage occurs, or do we just accept an open-ended increase with no thought of limits?

Excellent question, Jim. As always, you are being so reasonable.

Let all the nations work out acceptable levels of economic, environmental and social damage. That should be easy enough to do, for we know exactly how damaging those reffos are per unit when they shit in our toilets, are not permitted to work and cause friction on account of all of the dunny paper they deprive us of. Then we share out acceptance of them accordingly and tell whoever is left to go jump in the lake, go back to where they bloody well come from, recesstle in some other cesspool of a country or whatever. Not our business, sorry. Then we just feel great for what we have done and glad that our supply of gin has not been affected.

A reply without the sarcasm would be useful...

Remembering that I said that western countries should be able to take more, is even asking a question about potential limits so politically incorrect that it labels me as an incorrigible redneck?

[Hermit]

I was in one of my moods when I wrote that, Jim. Don't you know me by now?

The mood has passed a while ago, but I'd be dishonest if I said I now regret having written that then.

I would never mistake you for a redneck. Every now and again your relentless straight down the middle, on the one hand, on the other approach to dealing with problems seems misplaced, though. This is one of those situations. At the moment approximately eleven million human beings have been made homeless for one reason or another in the middle east and North Africa. As with other major catastrophes, this is not the time to carefully weigh up possible downsides in order to help as many of them as those possible downsides reasonably allow. Like with all other catastrophes of such a major scale the right approach is to do whatever can be done and deal with the consequences of that later.

[NineBerry]

Most will end up in London. Make you think twice about catching a London bus given the rumours about ISIS infiltrating the refugees in large numbers?

There's lots of IS supporters already in the UK. With British passports.

[NineBerry]

Take away the incentive. The incentive is to live and work in a richer country.
If you are having trouble policing the borders, you can police employment, with severe penalties for people employing illegal immigrants.

If the prospect of work is slim, they won't come. It's nothing to do with safety.

Those refugees are not illegal immigrants. They have a right to seek asylum according to that thing, you know, what's it called, human rights. Yeah, that thing that we Westerners are so proud of.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Brian Peacock]

Take away the incentive. The incentive is to live and work in a richer country.
If you are having trouble policing the borders, you can police employment, with severe penalties for people employing illegal immigrants.

If the prospect of work is slim, they won't come. It's nothing to do with safety.

If we just machine-gun them at the border the word will soon get around.

[JimC]

The motivation of the refugees is mixed and complex. It will lie on a spectrum from escaping certain death to simply wanting a western standard of living, and all the shades in between. To do the polarised thing, and assert that either they are all 100% genuine refugees (in the sense of truly fleeing real persecution and danger), or that they are all purely bogus seekers after wealth is simply absurd.

It would not be easy, but surely some form of prioritising would ensure that the most in need are at the head of the queue.

[Hermit]

The motivation of the refugees is mixed and complex. It will lie on a spectrum from escaping certain death to simply wanting a western standard of living, and all the shades in between. To do the polarised thing, and assert that either they are all 100% genuine refugees (in the sense of truly fleeing real persecution and danger), or that they are all purely bogus seekers after wealth is simply absurd.

According to Australian government statistics 90% of asylum seekers 'processed' by the government are adjudged to be bona fide refugees.

That is why our government puts them in offshore concentration camps, such as Manus Island and does its best not to process any of them at all. More recently it has taken to paying people smugglers to return them to Indonesia before they even set foot on Australian soil.

[JimC]

As well as an increased number of refugee intake, the west collectively needs to do more, politically and perhaps militarily to end the conflict in Syria and allow for many to return. A big ask, but ultimately the best solution.

[Hermit]

As well as an increased number of refugee intake, the west collectively needs to do more, politically and perhaps militarily to end the conflict in Syria and allow for many to return. A big ask, but ultimately the best solution.

The west better work on smarter plans. Previous ones aimed at liberating the oppressed in foreign countries wer not as successful as one might have hoped.