Migrant watch (merged topic)

[johnhemming2]

It's also a curious that Biff would quote this, given that he seems to be getting upset because people are making fun of him because his opinions are demonstrably nonsense.

On this occasion I agree with you, but I am not going to make a habit of it.

[AutomaticEarth]

spend funds on propaganda (ie don't come it's no better),... Does this sound sensible?

Yes we could put up posters showing photographs of Paris, Homs, London, Alleppo with a caption saying "It's Your Choice".

We could use pictures of Homs and Alleppo as pictures of London. Come on Biff, please keep up!

[biffvernon]

Well, at least AE saw the joke.

Back to serious stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35447113

[snow hope]

Well, at least AE saw the joke.

Back to serious stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35447113

If it was a joke why didn't you use a smiley?? Or did you forget like all the previous times you have done this?

What is the point in that link you have made - what has it got to do with this discussion?

[snow hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35714087

European Council President Donald Tusk has warned illegal economic migrants against coming to Europe, during a new push to solve the EU migrant crisis.

He said illegal economic migrants were risking "lives and money" for nothing

Watch this video, Biff. The world has changed. This is the EC President saying to potential migrants, in totally uncompromising language. "Do not come to Europe" (note there was no "please" on the front of that - it was a warning, not a request). He is saying, without any room for misunderstanding, "This is over. The invasion of Europe by economic migrants is finished. You will not be let in. Stay away."

This is the message that should have been sent out last summer. Better late than never.

Now, for the sake of sanity, common sense and the future of the community that uses this forum, please just accept the reality of what is happening.

This is not "propaganda". It is a stark and honest warning to stop people from risking their lives and wasting their money trying to get to a Europe which is simply not going to accept them. Angela Merkel has been over-ruled.

AGREED!! Give us all a break biffvernon - please.

[biffvernon]

Please feel free to take a break from my posts about migration on a discussion headed Migrant Watch. Reading them is not obligatory. As Brian Cox said, you are free to ignore. (Or make fun of, particularly when demonstrably nonsense.)

Jokes are probably best when not accompanied by a smiley indicating 'This is a joke'. And the best jokes are serious.

[snow hope]

Like a lot of other things, it does appear you are wrong on this as many times you have been queried on what you say afterwards is a joke - so it looks like you ought to use a smiley....

I tend to agree with UE that you belittle many people with your posts by indicating you feel you are morally right and "we" are morally in the wrong - I don't like that biffvernon and it leads to bad feelings on the forum - which has been very clearly pointed out by UE.

It is getting to the stage that it is putting me off the forum in general to be honest. How do you think this problem can be solved biffvernon as I would like to continue to use the forum without all this bad feeling and you do make some good posts which are worth reading.

I think we need to move forward on this issue - do you not agree?

[emordnilap]

It is getting to the stage that it is putting me off the forum in general to be honest.

I asked if people wanted to upgrade the forum software so we could have an 'ignore' option but some don't want that, for whatever reason and few wanted it. If we had it, you could just ignore Biff and carry on - I wouldn't like to see you go, SH, you have an individual and valuable perspective.

I quite like the tension between Biff and his main opponents. Both sides are worth listening to.

For me, it's the two spooky Johns that give me the creeps. I've learned to skip over their posts but yeah, they take value from the site with their weirdness and, often, incomprehensibility.

[Automaton]

Another cause of the migration we're seeing :

Eastern Mediterranean drought worst in 900 years – NASA

https://www.rt.com/news/334443-nasa-dro ... terranean/

[UndercoverElephant]

Biff

It seems to me that the whole argument is at cross-purposes anyway.

Underlying your position is a perfectly understandable wish to live in a better sort of world. You would like to live in a world where borders don't matter so much, because all the governments of the world work together to solve big problems like inequality, climate change, unsustainable economic models, a corrupt and insane monetary system, poverty, etc...

I suspect that almost everybody who posts on this forum would actually agree with this. Who wouldn't prefer to live in a world like that than in the world we actually find ourselves in? Even Jonny might be tempted.

So this argument is not about whether or not that is a worthy goal. It's about what we do right now, given what we know about the world we actually live in. It's about how we get from here to there - whether it is possible to get from here to there and how it might be achieved.

You seem to believe that it is possible to get from here to there by leading the way - by opening up our borders and, as a country, behaving in an exemplary manner, and hope others follow our lead. And this is the root of our disagreement, because it is now undeniably obvious that this strategy will not only not work, but would lead very quickly to a catastrophic result that nobody wants to see, especially not you.

If we (which you can take to mean "the UK" or "north-west Europe" or even "the EU") opened our borders and invited in anybody who wants to come then the result would be the biggest migration of in human history. Millions upon millions of people from all over the poorer parts of the world would up sticks and descend on Europe - a tidal wave of humanity. You cannot seriously deny this. You have tried to in the past, with ludicrous arguments about how "western Europe isn't that nice" and "people would prefer to stay where their ancestors are buried."

So all I am asking is that you are honest about this - that you admit that the result of opening our borders would be an massive influx of people which would have an appalling effect on the people already living in Europe. Our schools, hospitals, other infrastructure, environment and everything else would start collapsing under the strain, and there is little doubt that the people of Europe would respond by electing far right governments who enact some sort of "final solution" to solve the problems.

In other words, if we followed your advice about how to create a better world, the actual result would be an unimaginable catastrophe.

I simply don't know how you can deny this is true, Biff. But if you are willing to accept it then there really isn't anything left to argue about. The whole dispute is completely unneccesary. You can end it right now, simply by accepting and admitting that opening up our borders to unlimited immigration is not going to lead us to the better world you want to see.

[biffvernon]

Biff

It seems to me that the whole argument is at cross-purposes anyway.

Underlying your position is a perfectly understandable wish to live in a better sort of world. You would like to live in a world where borders don't matter so much, because all the governments of the world work together to solve big problems like inequality, climate change, unsustainable economic models, a corrupt and insane monetary system, poverty, etc...

I suspect that almost everybody who posts on this forum would actually agree with this. Who wouldn't prefer to live in a world like that than in the world we actually find ourselves in? Even Jonny might be tempted.

So this argument is not about whether or not that is a worthy goal. It's about what we do right now, given what we know about the world we actually live in. It's about how we get from here to there - whether it is possible to get from here to there and how it might be achieved.

Good so far.

You seem to believe that it is possible to get from here to there by leading the way - by opening up our borders and, as a country, behaving in an exemplary manner, and hope others follow our lead.

Ah, now here you are telling people what I 'seem to believe'. But it's not the case. Exemplary leadership sounds a good thing generally, but I have never written that "it is possible to get from here to there by leading the way - by opening up our borders" unilaterally. There was a moment last year when Germany made a small step in that direction, but other nations, particularly the UK, did not follow suit, leaving Germany with a unilateral policy which was bound to be problematic.

What I have consistently said, and the point has been consistently ignored, is that we must remove the migration push-factors, the insecurity and wealth differentials that are driving migration. I don't want to see mass migration any more than anyone else here. I just think that the was to prevent it is to remove the push rather than building fences. In the long term I think that will be a more successful strategy.

The downside for people in the rich nations is that they will have to share their wealth. I think much of the anti-migration opinion is a desire to protect the rich nations' position. A useful task is to find a way to reduce the differentials, and thus the desire for migration, while preserving a good quality of life in the currently rich areas.

I'm not saying that's easy but if the will was there I think it is possible. Building fences endangers becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy for disaster as it diverts efforts from making a better world for all.

[clv101]

Just to cut to the point though biffvernon, in hindsight do you think Merkel was wrong to say anyone arriving in Germany could stay?

And if the whole EU had followed suit last summer that too would have been a mistake?

I think UE has a good point about such access leading to many millions coming into Europe - and that leading to the right wing, protectionist backlash.

[Little John]

....I think much of the anti-migration opinion is a desire to protect the rich nations' position....

Much of the anti immigration public opinion is driven by people fearful that their lives are about to become even harder than they already are. People who are working ever longer hours for progressively less money and with little if any job security in order to pay insane rents on houses they can never afford to buy, all in a context of an inability to save for a pension and with an ever more hollowed out welfare state.

Open your f***ing eyes Biff Vernon.

[UndercoverElephant]

You seem to believe that it is possible to get from here to there by leading the way - by opening up our borders and, as a country, behaving in an exemplary manner, and hope others follow our lead.

Ah, now here you are telling people what I 'seem to believe'. But it's not the case.

Well, I think you maybe need to be aware of why people think you believe this, and maybe try a little harder to prevent misunderstandings. I'm not "telling people what you seem to believe". I'm telling you what I think you believe, and it is based on reading what you post.

Exemplary leadership sounds a good thing generally, but I have never written that "it is possible to get from here to there by leading the way - by opening up our borders" unilaterally.

You may not have written those exact words, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting the general theme of your posts on this topic.

There was a moment last year when Germany made a small step in that direction, but other nations, particularly the UK, did not follow suit, leaving Germany with a unilateral policy which was bound to be problematic.

That is only a small part of the story. As usual, your post suggests/implies more than you've actually written. In this case, you are suggesting that the reason the German policy failed was because other nations didn't also offer an open invitation to mass economic migration. Yes? But the truth, which I think even you ought to accept by now, is that if other nations had followed suit, the result would now be even more migrants streaming into Europe. In other words, we'd be in an even worse mess now than we currently are.

What I have consistently said, and the point has been consistently ignored, is that we must remove the migration push-factors, the insecurity and wealth differentials that are driving migration.

Yes, you've consistently said that. But again we have to come back to the question of what is realistically possible. Just like almost everybody would like to live in a world where governments work together to solve global problems, we'd also like to live in a world where poverty and war have been eliminated. But that isn't the world we live in, is it? And "ending war forever", noble a goal though it may be, has all the realism of a Miss World acceptance speech - none whatsoever.

So where does this leave us?

Given that the prospect of war and poverty being eliminated (or even significantly reduced) any time soon, what has this got to do with our policies now? What has it got to do with the migrant crisis now?

I don't want to see mass migration any more than anyone else here. I just think that the was to prevent it is to remove the push rather than building fences. In the long term I think that will be a more successful strategy.

Nobody is going to argue with you that it would be a good thing to try to reduce war and poverty. What we're arguing with you about is what should be done now and the migrant crisis that is happening now.

You are avoiding dealing with this issue, Biff. I am asking you to admit/accept that now the only realistic option is to prevent economic migrants coming to Europe. We have to "build fences", both metaphorically and literally. We have to do this because the alternative is much worse. If we don't build fences then there is going to be a catastrophe in Europe. You are responding to this by saying "We need to reduce the push factor, this is a better long-term strategy", but this is just a way to avoid dealing with the reality of what is happening now. I'm not arguing with you about long-term strategy. I'm asking you to accept that right now we have to build fences, regardless of whether or not we implement your advocated long-term strategy.

This discussion would be a whole lot easier if you didn't force me to extract these answers out of you by continually dodging the issue, Biff.

The downside for people in the rich nations is that they will have to share their wealth.

Which isn't going to happen, is it? When, in the whole of human history, has a nation voluntarily acted in the interests of wider humanity, rather than in its own perceived interests? The answer is "never", Biff. So again I have to ask you, what has this got to do with reality in the here and now? Again, you are advocating an admirable and noble long-term goal - an ideal - when you're actually being asked about reality, here and now.

I think much of the anti-migration opinion is a desire to protect the rich nations' position.

That may be so, but it doesn't change anything. It doesn't change the fact that if we open our borders, millions of economic migrants will flood into Europe, resulting in an unimaginable catastrophe.

A useful task is to find a way to reduce the differentials, and thus the desire for migration, while preserving a good quality of life in the currently rich areas.

I'm not saying that's easy but if the will was there I think it is possible.

But you and I and everybody else knows that the will isn't there, and that the prospect of this changing is nil. You are asking people to voluntarily accept a significant fall in their standard of living to help people in poorer parts of the world. The probability of this being accepted in a democratic country is precisely nil. It isn't going to happen. Which leaves us, yet again, trying to drag the discussion back to the real world.

Building fences endangers becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy for disaster as it diverts efforts from making a better world for all.

Please Biff. Please can we deal with reality? The reality is that in January and February of this year, 100,000 migrants arrived in Greece. This is happening now and we have to decide how to respond to it now.

These are the choices we have:

(1) "Build Fences" i.e. tell economic migrants not to come to Europe and send them back if they do.

(2) "Don't build fences" i.e. don't tell them not to come, invite them in like Germany did last year.

We are talking about which of these two should be chosen. Your response is "if we choose (1) then it distracts from [some long term strategy which has nothing to do with the choices we're making]"

In other words, you are saying we should choose (2) and justifying that choice by saying that the alternative distracts us from your long term strategy. Right? If so, there's so much wrong with this argument that it is hard to know where to start.

Firstly, there is no reason why "building fences" now should have any impact whatsoever on your proposed long term strategy.

Secondly, you proposed long terms strategy is based on an unrealisic idealism and has zero probability of ever happening.

Thirdly, all of this is just a distraction so you can avoid dealing with the reality of what would actually happen if we choose (2). The truth is that you know perfectly well that if we opened our borders now, millions of migrants would flood into Europe, leading to a catastrophe, not a better world.

Please try to move this discussion forward, based on reality in the here and now, and the questions I am actually asking you, instead of forcing me to make long posts that repeatedly point out that you are talking about idealism and long-term strategy.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not saying that's easy but if the will was there I think it is possible. Building fences endangers becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy for disaster as it diverts efforts from making a better world for all.

I think we are past any possibility of building a better world for "All" and must look to achieve as slow a decline as possible and perhaps keep some of our countries as good as they are for as long as possible. Deciding how many people you can support and then choosing which people to invite in rather then have the most aggressive barge in in uncontrolled numbers is the only way to hold on to what you have.