StuartO Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-02-13 1:46 AMStuartO - 2018-02-11 12:18 PM......................If you are personally unwilling to help all refugees (eg by welcoming them into your home) simply because they say they are refugees and on that basis are deserving of your help, is it fair to preach to other people about their suspicion that some so-called refugees are more deserving of help than others.It would only be unfair, if the only way to try to help refugees was to take them into one's home. However, it isn't, and this is yet another synthetic argument, designed to divert from the main point. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? Don't follow that Brian. Whether or not there are other ways of helping refugees (for example help to make their way in their own countries) doesn't entitle you demand of others that they admit more refugees to UK if you aren't willing to take them in yourself. It still seems to me to be a useful test of the morality of preaching to everyone else about what to do (on moral grounds, because they are all somehow needy and deserving people) is to ask if the preacher is himself doing anything other than preaching. If one's personal involvement in helping refugees is limited to preaching about what everyone should be doing (including those who live in towns and cities which are already burdened by large numbers of immigrants and think enough is enough) then one's credibility in my eyes is dimished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 12, 2018 Author Share Posted February 12, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-02-12 10:50 AM antony1969 - 2018-02-11 5:33 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-02-11 11:10 AM antony1969 - 2018-02-10 7:21 PM..........................On your other point I have no sympathy for them at all ... I do have great sympathy for the most persecuted folk of all , Christians in non-Christian lands and great sympathy for murdered white farmers in South Africa That's what I mean, Antony. People are people, whatever their origins, faiths, or politics. Yet you choose those who qualify as "migrants" when they flee whatever adversity, and exclude the others. The others, presumably, deserve whatever they get, because they were born into the "wrong" faith, of the "wrong" parents, in the "wrong" place, or have adopted the "wrong" political outlook. It just prompts me to ask why you bother to publicly parade your sympathy for your selected group, while turning a blind eye to the others. It tempts me to think that it may be because you are not moved by a humanitarian instinct, but through a blind political bias. A political bias that seems happy to condemn "the other" to their fate, while publicly weeping crocodile tears for the chosen few - so long, it seems, as they are at a safe distance from the UK. That is why it seems to me synthetic sympathy. But, as you so often seem to say, perhaps I'm once more reading more than you intend into what you write. Yes that's correct Brian Then, help me to understand your reasoning Antony, because at present I can't. I can't debate with a well, can I? Calm down Brian , calm down ;-) ... Lets be honest Brian over the last few years we've seen a lot of migrants claiming to be fleeing this that and t'other who in reality are no more than economic migrants and thats something even your beloved vice-president of the EU stated saying more than half are just that economic migrants ... Then we have the high criminality that they bring and boy have they brought it in style to places like Germany and Sweden and crime figures consistently back that up aswel as the many no-go areas Sweden now has ... Then we have the questionable attitudes to women and girls that has been shown time and again where ever these migrant types have settled and thats wether they are economic migrants or have needed a place of safety ... Then we have those migrants wether economic or legit who've carried out attacks against their hosts killing and injuring many innocent folk ... But most importantly for me why should I show sympathy , offer financial help or show any compassion towards those economic or real migrants that follow a certain book that amongst other horrendous teachings would quite gladly see me slaughtered ??? ... I'd have to be an utter loop but if others including you can see beyond that then good on you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 I am wonderfully calm, Antony. (lol) Thank you, and to a large extent I agree. A large number of those trying to claim asylum or refugee status do seem to be no such thing. They should be eliminated from consideration, and returned whence they came, unless countries actually want to take them in as workers. So, the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. Not made easy by the fact that they enter illegally, and in many cases with no identification, but needs doing. You may be surprised that I do not think those at the channel ports automatically become a problem for the UK, merely because that is where they say they want to go. They have entered the EU illegally, and it is for the EU to ensure they are screened as to their status, and those who pass scrutiny admitted to those countries willing to receive them, and the rest sent home. However, that will still quite a large number who are deemed legitimate refugees/in need of asylum who should be admitted. The EU didn't see this coming and, despite the time it has been going on, has yet to take proper responsibility for the mess they created by opening internal borders without creating a viable border force to police the common external border. Under present circumstances the issue is now so toxic that no-one has the moral authority or political to create that border force. Incidentally, that, in part, is why I don't see any imminent risk of the EU becoming a super-state. As it stands it cannot even manage it's external border, so what kind of super-state is that? We can only take in those we can reasonably house. To do otherwise would involve the creation of refugee camps, or housing them in unsatisfactory buildings. That, IMO, is not a sensible option. So, we need to screen again for family links, so as to keep the influx to manageable proportions. I do not agree that we should exclude Muslims, but we should definitely take account of the risk that there would be chancers, criminals, and potential terrorists among them. That seems to me to point to a need for some to be quarantined, to eliminate, as far as possible, the bad eggs. Given some thought and planning, I can't see why that could not be achieved, nor why it has not yet been achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 12, 2018 Author Share Posted February 12, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-02-12 1:27 PM I am wonderfully calm, Antony. (lol) Thank you, and to a large extent I agree. A large number of those trying to claim asylum or refugee status do seem to be no such thing. They should be eliminated from consideration, and returned whence they came, unless countries actually want to take them in as workers. So, the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. Not made easy by the fact that they enter illegally, and in many cases with no identification, but needs doing. You may be surprised that I do not think those at the channel ports automatically become a problem for the UK, merely because that is where they say they want to go. They have entered the EU illegally, and it is for the EU to ensure they are screened as to their status, and those who pass scrutiny admitted to those countries willing to receive them, and the rest sent home. However, that will still quite a large number who are deemed legitimate refugees/in need of asylum who should be admitted. The EU didn't see this coming and, despite the time it has been going on, has yet to take proper responsibility for the mess they created by opening internal borders without creating a viable border force to police the common external border. Under present circumstances the issue is now so toxic that no-one has the moral authority or political to create that border force. Incidentally, that, in part, is why I don't see any imminent risk of the EU becoming a super-state. As it stands it cannot even manage it's external border, so what kind of super-state is that? We can only take in those we can reasonably house. To do otherwise would involve the creation of refugee camps, or housing them in unsatisfactory buildings. That, IMO, is not a sensible option. So, we need to screen again for family links, so as to keep the influx to manageable proportions. I do not agree that we should exclude Muslims, but we should definitely take account of the risk that there would be chancers, criminals, and potential terrorists among them. That seems to me to point to a need for some to be quarantined, to eliminate, as far as possible, the bad eggs. Given some thought and planning, I can't see why that could not be achieved, nor why it has not yet been achieved. Glad that we agree on much ... I fear it may be too late for any border force thanks to Mrs Merkels horrendous open invitation ... The trouble is with the screening and quarantine of Muslims we create that POTUS Trump problem here like they've had in The States with his supposed Muslim ban where many wets (sorry) thought he was committing something worse than murder ... Could you imagine the uproar if we had quarantine of Muslims because they may be a danger to us ??? ... Your last comment "why it has not yet been achieved" is probably answered by my uproar comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-02-12 2:22 PM........................The trouble is with the screening and quarantine of Muslims we create that POTUS Trump problem here like they've had in The States with his supposed Muslim ban where many wets (sorry) thought he was committing something worse than murder ... Could you imagine the uproar if we had quarantine of Muslims because they may be a danger to us ??? ... Your last comment "why it has not yet been achieved" is probably answered by my uproar comment I'm not sure. If all Muslims were screened, then yes, because it would be discriminatory. However, if all are screened (and I assume they would be), and only those who ring alarm bells are quarantined, I don't see why there should be uproar. Border checks on "aliens" are normal, irrespective of nationality or creed. All points of entry have holding facilities, and there are detention facilities for those whose credentials take longer to verify. No need for special measures for one group or another. How easy it is to be accepted would depend on their own demeanour and the quality and verifiability of their answers. Immigration officers have wide ranging powers, you just have to get the immigrants to the Immigration officers. The main problem I can foresee is insufficient suitably trained Immigration officers, but that is not impossible to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 12, 2018 Author Share Posted February 12, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-02-12 6:29 PM antony1969 - 2018-02-12 2:22 PM........................The trouble is with the screening and quarantine of Muslims we create that POTUS Trump problem here like they've had in The States with his supposed Muslim ban where many wets (sorry) thought he was committing something worse than murder ... Could you imagine the uproar if we had quarantine of Muslims because they may be a danger to us ??? ... Your last comment "why it has not yet been achieved" is probably answered by my uproar comment I'm not sure. If all Muslims were screened, then yes, because it would be discriminatory. However, if all are screened (and I assume they would be), and only those who ring alarm bells are quarantined, I don't see why there should be uproar. Border checks on "aliens" are normal, irrespective of nationality or creed. All points of entry have holding facilities, and there are detention facilities for those whose credentials take longer to verify. No need for special measures for one group or another. How easy it is to be accepted would depend on their own demeanour and the quality and verifiability of their answers. Immigration officers have wide ranging powers, you just have to get the immigrants to the Immigration officers. The main problem I can foresee is insufficient suitably trained Immigration officers, but that is not impossible to fix. Suppose it depends on your definition of quarantine Brian ... If all Muslims went straight to quarantine and were held indefinitely purely because they are Muslim I see great problems with that from certain members of our society ... For me not a problem as Muslims pose a major problem for the free world wether through terrorism or Islamic teachings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.