Migrant watch (merged topic)

[UndercoverElephant]

We have an international, humanitarian obligation as surely now as we did to people fleeing Hitler 80 years ago.

No we don't, for reasons explained in that other thread that was locked.

The current situation is different to 1945/46 in two crucial respects.

Firstly, in 1945 the global population was about one third of the current figure, and Europe in particular had seen a sharp drop in population due to the war. In other words, there was plenty of space and a need for people to rebuild the shattered European countries.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the situation in 1945 was temporary. Everybody knew that once the displaced people had been found new homes, the crisis would end. The situation today is the diametric opposite: this crisis is permanent. It doesn't matter how many of these refugees we take, more will keep coming, until such time as the situation Europe is so bad that it has ceased to be worth coming here.

Ethically, this changes everything. There is no moral responsibility on Europe to keep taking refugees if the supply of refugees is endless and the end result is a humanitarian catastrophe here too.

Many of the men, women and children in Calais are desperate.

Of course they are. The problem is that there are countless more of them ready to take their place.

We owe it to them and to our own idea of what it means to be British to do more, quickly and humanely.

We don't owe them anything at all.

[biffvernon]

What some 19 year old wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-w ... 98814.html

Or maybe you prefer the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ctims.html

[snow hope]

You are such a dreamer Biff. The world you live in must be built from sugar puffs.

We cannot keep taking in 10s of thousands of these migrants, as next year it will be hundreds of thousands and the following year it will be millions.

At what point are you prepared to say we can't take any more? Do you want the leaders of our country/Govt. to allow unlimited numbers into the country? On what basis? Shall we just let all the people in the vast continent of Africa into the UK, because their standard of living is not as good as ours? Have you been to Africa? Do you know what pragmatism means? I just can't comprehend your lack of reality - you are like a young child. Why?

[biffvernon]

The lack of reality lies in the idea that all the people in the vast continent of Africa would ever want to come to the UK. Across the world almost everybody prefers to live and die in the land of their ancestors.

That some people are forced into migration is the result of war and extreme poverty. We in the rich world are heavily implicated in the creation of both these factors. The burden sharing (insofar as it is a burden) of receiving migrants should be fairly distributed amongst all the rich countries.

If a world free from the extremes of poverty and war is a dream them I will dream on but I also work to turn the dream into reality. And I am far from alone.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -in-calais

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way...

I have just re-read the thread and realised that Anne Perkins wasn't even talking about the enormous refugee crisis after the end of WW2.

We have an international, humanitarian obligation as surely now as we did to people fleeing Hitler 80 years ago.

80 years ago is 1935, not 1945, so she was talking about the people fleeing Germany before the war. This is an even less reasonable comparison to that of 1945/46, given that she's talking specifically about Jews fleeing impending genocide in one country. These migrants aren't fleeing from one fascist dictatorship - they are fleeing from the whole of sub-saharan Africa, multiple countries in the middle east where there are on-going civil wars, an Islamist Caliphate and probably countless other places as well. The comparison is unreasonable for three reasons: complexity, sheer scale, and the fact that we know that there is going to be no end to it.

When asking ethical questions, it is no good saying "We should do X" just because we feel like it is the right thing to do. We have to provide a reasoned case as to what the most probable consequences of X are and compare them to the most probably consequences of Y and Z.

The most important factor here is that this is not a finite, one-off event like the Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany. By contrast it is open-ended. If this was some other board, where Peak Oil and the Limits to Growth were not mutually understood and accepted assumptions then maybe it would be worth discussing how big the problem is likely to get.. But this is Powerswitch, and everybody taking part in this debate knows, or at least ought to know, that this is just the start of something much, much worse. That is absolutely the context of the discussions that take place here, as you, Biff Vernon, know all too well.

[biffvernon]

Here's another quote, not from a Guardian journalist but from an MEP

Office of Keith Taylor MEP writes for Politics.co.uk on the crisis in Calais, importantly providing a different perspective to much of the UK media...
'The prime minister's comments yesterday about the situation in Calais not only show a total loss of perspective but indicate a real failure to address the growing crisis.
It's clear all sense of proportion has been lost as Cameron sympathises with British holidaymakers while displaying a lack of humanity towards the migrants risking their lives in Calais. British holidaymakers are being inconvenienced, no doubt, but the victims of this crisis are the migrants and asylum seekers who have fled war, poverty and persecution and are being failed by the UK's border system. Nigel Farage's pre-emptive warning that a British national could soon be killed as a result of the chaos - when nine migrants have already died in the past two months alone - should in fact serve as a marker of how pervasive the 'them and us' rhetoric has become in this country’s politics.
Cameron's comments this morning - promising greater security at the Calais border and more deportations of 'illegal' immigrants from Britain - will only stoke up tension among the public, who are already subjected to inflammatory headlines about migrant 'invasions'.
But the prime minister's comments also strike a deeply uncomfortable note for those of us who consider this country to be a place where those fleeing terror or persecution can rebuild their lives. His promise that the UK will not become a 'safe haven' for migrants is staggering: the UK is the world's sixth largest economy - and a country with a proud history of welcoming refugees. We have a responsibility to offer sanctuary to those who need it and, let's be honest, we do bear some responsibility for unrest and instability in other parts of the world.
The government's proposals - for a new, higher fence, and greater numbers of police - are a myopic reaction to the recent spotlight placed on the issue. They are the antithesis to the compassionate, collaborative long-term solution needed.
Having the UK's border in France without any mechanism for those hoping to enter the UK via Calais to seek asylum here is clearly not working, particularly as the UK government is refusing to take responsibility for the plight of people camped there.
Neither is the UK government's resistant approach to EU negotiations around resettlement of refugees, as a result of which we are offering a home to far fewer people than we should. Out of the four million people fleeing violence in Syria, for example, the UK government has pledged to resettle fewer than 1,000.
The current situation highlights that now, more than ever, the UK needs to work within a European-wide framework not only to ensure that those in need of asylum are able to find it, but to address the factors - like climate change, disease and poverty - which are forcing people to cross continents in search of safety.'
You can also see Shahrar Ali Deputy Leader Green Party speaking on the topic on BBC South East Today last night - tune in from around 6 minutes (available until 7pm today): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... y-30072015

[UndercoverElephant]

What was the purpose in saying your income was less than LJ's

My comment was in response to LJ's comment about my personal situation, which really has no place in such a debate.

I don't agree. Sometimes people's personal situation is directly relevant to a particular debate. And even if you think this wasn't one of those cases, your response was still disingenuous - you pretended you didn't really understand what was being said when in fact you understood it perfectly well. You do this either to frustrate the natural course of the debate, or to intentionally wind people up.

The reason your own personal situation does matter, as has been explained to you on countless occasions, is that you are advocating policies based on respect for the humanitarian needs of these migrants, while bloody-mindedly ignoring the humanitarian consequences for people in the UK who aren't lucky enough to be able to afford to live in a leafy, sparsely-populated part of the country. In short, the migrants you are so keen to let in will not end up in your neighbourhood. If you still don't understand why this is inviting an angry response from British people whose living standards and options are way below your own, then you need to think a bit harder.

Quoting other people who are as detached from reality as you are does not help your case.

But it illustrates that my views are pretty common, at least amongst Guardian writers and readers if not those of the Daily Mail.

Over 50% of the US population views climate change as a left-wing conspiracy. Holding views that are common is not a substitute for holding views that are rationally/scientifically defensible.

Let's try a little test. A question.
Is this refugee situation essentially the same as 1945/46, or are there any important differences?

There are a great many important differences but there are also lessons that we can learn from history. As I've probably mentioned before, my mother was an immigrant, fleeing from persecution by the Third Reich in pre-war Germany. My childhood hardly saw a day when there was not a foreign visitor in the house. Three of my siblings married people from other nations. I have an internationalist outlook that is the antithesis of the Little Englander caricature.

We are not accusing you of being a "Little Englander" - a term which means "xenophobic" or "overly nationalistic". We're accusing you of being a middle class liberal sorely lacking in political realism and wallowing in idealism, who is posting on an internet forum the sole purpose of which is to host debates about the real world consequences of Peak Oil.

I would like to see open borders the world over,

And I would like to see all the world's religious people come to the realisation there is One Truth underlying all of them, and stop fighting with each other. Sometimes what we would like is something that just isn't going to happen, and in those cases we have to deal with reality instead.

but that must come as a result of international agreement with a large proportion of the world participating. It will have to be preceded by a much fairer distribution of wealth around the world and a lot fewer wars and other causes of migratory push factors.

And as you well know, the probability of the scenario you've described actually happening is zero. So why is it relevant?

We have to deal with the situation as it is now, and as it is likely develop in the forseeable future.

In the meantime the UK could accommodate at least as many asylum seekers as Germany and Sweden have recently done, with negligible cost and perhaps even an economic benefit.

Yes we could, if we are willing to ignore the probable long-term consequences of that decision. The several thousand people currently camped in Calais, and the countless thousands trying to get into the EU, are doing so even though they know that the journey is difficult and perilous, that they aren't wanted in the places they are trying to get to, and that they may not be allowed to legally remain there. You are proposing that we make it easy for them to get here and legal for them to remain here. In other words, by helping the ones that are already trying to get here, all you are going to do is encourage even more to attempt the journey. So we let 10,000 of them in, and those 10,000 are replaced by another 20,000. Do we let those 20,000 in too? If we do, they'll be replaced by another 30,000.

This is the problem, and you are being disingenous if you claim you don't understand it. You have been asked repeatedly under what conditions you'd stop allowing people to come here, and your answer is always the same: "Never. So long as they want to come, they should be let in."

It is not the fate of the 10,000 that are trying to get here from Calais right now that matters in this discussion. It is the longer term consequences of our decision on how to deal with those 10,000 that matters - consequences that you are point blank refusing to consider.

[UndercoverElephant]

Here's another quote, not from a Guardian journalist but from an MEP

I am well aware of the views of Keith Taylor. He's a nice guy, who used to be my ward councillor in Brighton and his son Stefan is a friend of mine.

But that doesn't make him right on this issue.

Please address the arguments I have put forward.

[UndercoverElephant]

Having the UK's border in France without any mechanism for those hoping to enter the UK via Calais to seek asylum here is clearly not working, particularly as the UK government is refusing to take responsibility for the plight of people camped there.

Why, precisely, should the UK government take responsibility for the plight of thousands of non-British citizens who are camped outside Britain, and trying to enter illegally?

What is the justification for our moral responsibility? Did the UK cause the problems these people are fleeing from?

As explained ad infinitum, the underlying issue here is that these people camped in Calais are the tip of a very dangerous iceberg. Keith Taylor, and yourself, are making a moral case about the tip, while pretending the rest of the iceberg doesn't exist.

This isn't going to win the Green Party many converts. It makes the green movement look out of touch with both reality and normal people.

[biffvernon]

> lucky enough to be able to afford to live in a leafy, sparsely-populated part of the country. In short, the migrants you are so keen to let in will not end up in your neighbourhood.

Luck doesn't come into it very much. I bought a house in one of the cheapest areas of Britain and paid for it out of my wages with the help of a mortgage over 25 years. My next door neighbour is polish and he has a Ukrainian wife. But I still don't think my personal circumstances should have much to do with this discussion.

>So we let 10,000 of them in

Why stop there? Let's let a million in*, provide them with homes, education and the rest and challenge every other rich nation to do the same. Let us in the UK be the world leader in what is right and herald a new world order.

*That's fewer than either Turkey or Jordan.

Now, I'd love to answer the rest of your points, but there's gooseberries to pick.

[mr brightside]

I think we ourselves might be partly to blame for this situation. Take Africa; we've been piling cash into that place for the better part of 40yrs building wells, schools, sowing the ground with seed, treating tropical diseases, and now the resulting population explosion is heading our way because they are outstripping the resources faster than Unicef and The Red Cross can put more in place. Western aid has been fighting the normal processes that curtail overpopulation. As for why they're risking their arses to get here; i think it's because they know how difficult it is to remove them once they are here, especially if sham marriage and children are involved. There are criminal networks of dodgy johnny foreigners living here legally who will get them all the right paperwork, and generally exploit their plight for a price.

I don't see it as a migration problem, but an overpopulation problem though i could be wrong there. Lots of people are finding themselves with nothing and are coming here for a slice of what we have got, whatever that might be. The way i see it the only option we have is to defend what we have, any other course of action will just move the crisis from there to here.

[Snail]

If the migrant problem gets really bad, and the UK goes the expected route, then expect a fundamental shift in how we're governed. Turning the UK into a prision-camp will do that.

And won't stop the crisis anyway. Just delay it.

What about fixing what's wrong with these places. Or even better, stop causing so many problems in the first place; either directly, or indirectly. Libya, Syria etc.

Tin-pot african dictator. Flatten him. Stupid civil-war. End it by force if necessary and manage it like Japan after ww2. Natural disaster, famine, climate-change; ditto.

The world's too small and not nipping problems in one place usually causes future problems elsewhere.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think we ourselves might be partly to blame for this situation. Take Africa; we've been piling cash into that place for the better part of 40yrs building wells, schools, sowing the ground with seed, treating tropical diseases, and now the resulting population explosion is heading our way because they are outstripping the resources faster than Unicef and The Red Cross can put more in place. Western aid has been fighting the normal processes that curtail overpopulation. As for why they're risking their arses to get here; i think it's because they know how difficult it is to remove them once they are here, especially if sham marriage and children are involved. There are criminal networks of dodgy johnny foreigners living here legally who will get them all the right paperwork, and generally exploit their plight for a price.

Yes to all that.

I don't see it as a migration problem, but an overpopulation problem though i could be wrong there.

It's both.

Lots of people are finding themselves with nothing and are coming here for a slice of what we have got, whatever that might be.

Some of them are economic migrants, some are fleeing persecution and wars.

The way i see it the only option we have is to defend what we have, any other course of action will just move the crisis from there to here.

I'd have used the word "spread" instead of "move".

[UndercoverElephant]

What about fixing what's wrong with these places.

You want to "fix" the Islamic world? Good luck with that one.

Or even better, stop causing so many problems in the first place; either directly, or indirectly. Libya, Syria etc.

Stopping our meddling in the Middle East will at best mean we aren't making the existing situation worse, and won't be even partly responsible for it. But it won't change the situation that already exists.

Tin-pot african dictator. Flatten him. Stupid civil-war. End it by force if necessary and manage it like Japan after ww2.

We tried that. It didn't work. See: Iraq.

The single worst problem at the moment is in Syria. How are we supposed to end that? It's a civil war where the two main sides are a "tin pot" military dictatorship and an extemist Islamist movement. Almost nobody in Syria is interested in democracy, and any attempt to invade and rule by force is likely to end up like Iraq or worse.

The Middle East is not Japan. Japan could be managed in the way it was because it is Japan.

Natural disaster, famine, climate-change; ditto.

We can't fix those now. Not even God can fix those now...

[biffvernon]

Now, I'd love to answer the rest of your points, but there's gooseberries to pick.

...is the other reason why you do not debate this in a reasonable manner. When it gets to the nitty gritty, or the posts get a bit too long, you just ignore them.

You cannot defend your position. It is indefensible.

No, it's just that picking gooseberries (and quite a lot of other things) is more important to me than posting on PowerSwitch. Anyway, it's your turn to answer my first point in my 12.56 post.

When you've done that, remind me which important point of yours I missed.

Meanwhile, here's another Guardian journalist explaining what ought to be done. [Not to be read by those of a cold-hearted nature.]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ent-europe