Migrant watch (merged topic)

[UndercoverElephant]

there isn't enough Machiavellian fences and bullets,

Except there clearly are. Where the political will exists, there are enough fences and bullets. And I think it is becoming increasingly clear that if the political mainstream doesn't provide it, then the electorate of western countries will hand power to extremists on both the right and the left who will.

That is what this comes down to. Our governments have a moral and legal duty to protect us from threats to our security and well-being. We are talking about a very big threat indeed.

I believe the reality, no matter how unpalatable, is that this problem will eventually be solved with fences and bullets. Hopefully more fences than bullets.

[peaceful_life]

there isn't enough Machiavellian fences and bullets,

Except there clearly are. Where the political will exists, there are enough fences and bullets. And I think it is becoming increasingly clear that if the political mainstream doesn't provide it, then the electorate of western countries will hand power to extremists on both the right and the left who will.

That is what this comes down to. Our governments have a moral and legal duty to protect us from threats to our security and well-being. We are talking about a very big threat indeed.

I believe the reality, no matter how unpalatable, is that this problem will eventually be solved with fences and bullets. Hopefully more fences than bullets.

No, the system will nullify and dissolve back to itself.. these temporary uses of metal. Inertia and entropy have their way and that's just the way of it. What 'we' assume in our anthropocentric sense of dominion means nothing to the REALITIES , if they did...then we would be paying attention to the true laws and not pretending that legal can somehow thwart the laws of physics for parochial wants.

What happens over THERE is..in reality, here. It's no threat, i's here and believe as you wish..manning the turrets won't stop it.

[Little John]

PL, I have little idea what you are talking about with this last post. Can you please rephrase it in ordinary language. I'm not being facetious. Please can you do that so I can properly respond.

however, to hazard a guess:

If what you are essentially saying is that nature will have it's way, then I agree. That is to say, 7 billion is utterly unsustainable and there will be a die off no matter what we do. If that is what you mean, then I completely agree. However, that being the case, it is quite illogical and, even, immoral to allow ordinary people in this country to suffer massive privations that would ensue from allowing an unfettered inward migration of environmental refugees from those parts of the world that are already well into the early stages of collapse. Furthermore, it would be an incredibly politically unstable thing to do in any event and would likely result in major civil insurrection at some point when the indigenous population reached the end of its tether. Which it surely would. As UE has just suggested, this would likely lead to an extreme of left or right, My biggest fear is that it would most likely lead to an extreme right.

The dream of the 60s, where we would all hold hands together in some kind of facsimile of a Coca Cola ad is dead and gone. It was always a luxury born of the abundance of the hydrocarbon age. I want a better world PL, a fairer, less cruel, less broken world. But, I will settle for a UK that holds onto some semblance of civilised life while all around us falls apart.. God knows, that's going to be hard enough to achieve as it is.

[peaceful_life]

PL, I have little idea what you are talking about with this last post. Can you please rephrase it in ordinary language. I'm not being facetious. Please can you do that so I can properly respond.

however, to hazard a guess:

If what you are essentially saying is that nature will have it's way, then I agree. That is to say, 7 billion is utterly unsustainable and there will be a die off no matter what we do. If that is what you mean, then I completely agree. However, that being the case, it is quite illogical and, even, immoral to allow ordinary people in this country to suffer massive privations that would ensue from allowing an unfettered inward migration of environmental refugees from those parts of the world that are already well into the early stages of collapse. Furthermore, it would be an incredibly politically unstable thing to do in any event and would likely result in major civil insurrection at some point when the indigenous population reached the end of its tether. Which it surely would. As UE has just suggested, this would likely lead to an extreme of left or right, My biggest fear is that it would most likely lead to an extreme right.

The dream of the 60s, where we would all hold hands together in some kind of facsimile of a Coca Cola ad is dead and gone. It was always a luxury born of the abundance of the hydrocarbon age. I want a better world PL, a fairer, less cruel, less broken world. But, I will settle for a UK that holds onto some semblance of civilised life while all around us falls apart.. God knows, that's going to be hard enough to achieve as it is.

There's something to be said for the candour in your post.

The essence in what I'm saying is that any notions of self preservation, both here..and there, will be best served by bringing about primary ecological stability, and therefore... a tertiary socially economic security thereafter, this can and has already been done on the broad-scale. That can be read as an ecologically left, or a strategically right perspective, it doesn't actually make any difference to the overall outcome, because if our humanly efforts aren't focused on getting it done then the biospherical degradation, coupled with climatic upheaval, will simply rip right through us, irrespective of geographical location.

I've heard it termed as 'enlightened self interest', it's an option at least.

[UndercoverElephant]

The essence in what I'm saying is that any notions of self preservation, both here..and there, will be best served by bringing about primary ecological stability

But on a global scale, "primary ecological stability" via planned, voluntary means, is about as far away as human colonisation of Mars. The only difference being that "primary ecological stability" is guaranteed to arrive sooner or later anyway, by an unplanned, involuntary process involving lots of humans dying of starvation, disease and war, until there's nothing like so many of us destabilising the ecosystem.

because if our humanly efforts aren't focused on getting it done then the biospherical degradation, coupled with climatic upheaval, will simply rip right through us, irrespective of geographical location.

I see no reason why it should rip through all human societies equally - in the same way or at the same time. It seems to me inevitable that some parts of the world are going to go tits up much sooner than others. In fact this is already happening, which is exactly why we are talking about this. You seem to be saying something along the lines of "if it all goes horribly wrong in, say, sub-saharan Africa, then we can't stop the fallout from making it all go horribly wrong here."

I don't think this is true, there are plenty of people who agree with me, and if the political mainstream doesn't at least attempt to preserve some semblance of civilisation in Europe/UK when this happens then the people will elect an extremist government who will. If the people currently arriving on Greek islands believed they'd be rounded up and taken back to Turkey/Libya the next day, then they would not pay the traffickers £1000 to get here. Likewise if the people camped in Calais believed their chances of being allowed to stay in the UK were nil, they wouldn't be there.

You are saying nothing can be done. I don't agree.

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 46622.html

How many asylum seekers are really coming to the UK as European migrant crisis continues?

Despite panic about the “swarms” of migrants supposedly trying to reach British shores from Calais, only four per cent of Europe’s asylum seekers are applying to stay in the UK.

Statistics from the European Commission show that 185,000 people applied for asylum for the first time across the EU in the first three months of this year, but only a tiny fraction were in Britain.

The UK stands in seventh place for claims, being far outstripped by people seeking safety in Germany, Hungary and Italy.

[jonny2mad]

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/20 ... st-decade/

The LSC estimate of illegal immigrants in the uk is interesting and how likely different groups are to just come here and be on benefits .half of british muslim men are on benefits 3/4 of british muslim women are on benefits .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... point.html

I agree you do have more of these people arriving in other eu states be interesting if at some point you re awake german nationalism by flooding the country with muslims and people from the third world.

you would think all these idiots going look at germany how many people they take in would actually notice the rise of groups like PEGIDA, but hey ho all you can do is get out the popcorn and wait for the train crash again

[Little John]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 46622.html

How many asylum seekers are really coming to the UK as European migrant crisis continues?

Despite panic about the “swarms” of migrants supposedly trying to reach British shores from Calais, only four per cent of Europe’s asylum seekers are applying to stay in the UK.

Statistics from the European Commission show that 185,000 people applied for asylum for the first time across the EU in the first three months of this year, but only a tiny fraction were in Britain.

The UK stands in seventh place for claims, being far outstripped by people seeking safety in Germany, Hungary and Italy.

I keep seeing this kind of argument being presented. What difference does it make if we are 1st, 6th or 10th in some bleeding hit-parade in terms of the argument for why, in principle, these migrants should not be allowed to remain in either the UK or any other country in the EU? This is not about just these migrants. It is about the hundreds of millions that are only just behind them in space and time. Either one believes that we really have hit a world of peak global resources in the context of an utterly unsustainable population level of 7 billion or one does not. If one does, then it follows that is is (a) inevitable that billions are going to perish and (b) there is nothing, fundamentally, that can be done to ameliorate that other than to make local provisions to survive as best can be managed and to help internationally insofar only as those local provisions are not significantly undermined.

We can't save the world.

[Catweazle]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 46622.html

How many asylum seekers are really coming to the UK as European migrant crisis continues?

Despite panic about the “swarms” of migrants supposedly trying to reach British shores from Calais, only four per cent of Europe’s asylum seekers are applying to stay in the UK.

Statistics from the European Commission show that 185,000 people applied for asylum for the first time across the EU in the first three months of this year, but only a tiny fraction were in Britain.

The UK stands in seventh place for claims, being far outstripped by people seeking safety in Germany, Hungary and Italy.

"Asylum Seeker" and "Illegal Immigrant" are not the same.

[Little John]

In the years to come, as things get tighter, I suspect the distinction will sadly become moot.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, I for one hope it doesn't. I have recently met an asylum seeker from Kosovo - a journalist on the run from the authorities in that country, after he exposed things they didn't want expose.

I'd like to think there will always be room for people like him.

[Little John]

Well, I for one hope it doesn't. I have recently met an asylum seeker from Kosovo - a journalist on the run from the authorities in that country, after he exposed things they didn't want expose.

I'd like to think there will always be room for people like him.

So would I.

But;

In twenty or thirty year's time, when faced with two individuals, one of whom is running way from a specific risk of torture and another who is running away from a more general, but nevertheless real, risk of starvation and war, what difference is there, morally, in terms of who to help since their lives are both at risk? None, as far as I can see. In which case it will come down simply whether or not the resources are there to help and the extent to which the individual will be useful in our society, If the resources are not available and/or the individual will not be able to contribute at least as much as they consume, then it will be of little comfort to anyone to know that we would have helped them had the resources been available. In other words, in the absence of the necessary resources, it will simply not be possible to admit them, no matter what the reason for their seeking to migrate here.

These are the hard realities that face us in the coming years.

[UndercoverElephant]

what difference is there, morally, in terms of who to help since their lives are both at risk? None, as far as I can see.

The moral difference is that in my example, the person being offered asylum has actively done something to try to make the world better, at risk to himself, rather than just try to make his own life better. We need those people to keep doing that, don't we?

[biffvernon]

"Asylum Seeker" and "Illegal Immigrant" are not the same.

Same person, different time. At the moment one crosses the border one is an 'illegal immigrant'. When one then goes to a police station asking for asylum there begins a process that leads to gaining the status of 'asylum seeker' and one is then entitled to receive £36.95 per week.

One's status as 'human being' and 'refugee' is maintained throughout the process. These two categories oblige the state to offer protection under United Nations conventions.

[Little John]

what difference is there, morally, in terms of who to help since their lives are both at risk? None, as far as I can see.

The moral difference is that in my example, the person being offered asylum has actively done something to try to make the world better, at risk to himself, rather than just try to make his own life better. We need those people to keep doing that, don't we?

I'm not disagreeing with any of this UE. Far from it. I am merely making the observation that, in a boat full to the brim of people trying to make it to shore, it matters little the righteousness of the next person person trying to clamber aboard. You can't let them on. Or, at least, not without significantly compromising the security of those already aboard. If everyone aboard agrees to the increased risk, then fine. But, if they do not, then no single individual has to right to compromise their security without that permission.

We are not at the above point yet. I know that. But, we are closer to it than many people realize. What we are seeing in Calais is only the beginning and will, I believe, become a more or less permanent feature there. At some point, the kind of moral dilemma I have outlined will have to be faced. It's just a matter of when.