Migrant watch (merged topic)

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Little John

Post by Little John »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Interesting question. I don't know the answer, ...
This is key. As far as I can tell there aren't any answers, at least not that anything like a majority would agree acceptable. The situation is a mess, and I'm very wary of anyone proposing answers, solutions or whatever. 'No borders' is extremely problematic, as is establishing firm borders, or building walls(!) given the state of the world.

Given how messy the situation is I'm amazed at the strength of opposing opinion expressed here. Those supporting Merkel's position don't seem to give nearly enough attention to the very real local problems associated with it and equally those supporting a 'tough', or nationalistic response to migrants don't seem to give nearly enough attention to the plight many hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in.

The situation is not black and white, there isn't straightforward answer, beware anyone addressing this situation with confidence.
CLV, whatever the solution, assuming there actually is one, one thing is reasonably certain; the more refugees/migrants that are encouraged to come, the more will come. It will not stop at the hundreds of thousands or even a few million. As has been stated many times on here previously, ethically that changes everything. As hard as it is to say, there is no moral imperative to concern oneself with solving the plight of many hundreds of thousands of people when it is certain that in doing so, it will cause them to be followed by an endless stream of millions. The only point to it would be if there was a destination to such concerns. An end point, in other words. There is no end point. In which case, to encourage such migrants to come here is to sell them a false prospectus whilst simultaneously handing our political future to the far right.

In short, I am saying that, no matter how messy nor how brutal, there will absolutely come a point, either by choice or by forced circumstance, where there will be no circumstances whatsoever that migrants, of any kind, who have not been specifically invited, will be allowed into Europe. The only thing we get to decide, then, is when that happens and consequently how messy it is. It seems to me that the sooner that message is put out to the world, the less messy and brutal, hopefully, it will be. And it does not matter how difficult it will be to police and maintain a fortress Europe because the alternative is even worse. We are now going to have to face up to a future where it is not possible to do the right thing. Only the least wrong thing.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13501
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Interesting question. I don't know the answer, ...
The situation is not black and white, there isn't straightforward answer, beware anyone addressing this situation with confidence.
I agree, but it does depend on what you are addressing with confidence. There is such a thing a s cause and effect. I am very confident that an open boirders policy will encourage more migrations. That's easy. What to do about the resulting problems is the question there is no easy answer to.

Probably best to avoid going there then, if possible.

I'd also point out that you are talking about ethics - about what should happen. I'd say that regardless of what should happen, whatr will happen, sooner or later, is the use of live ammunition. Just as the current situation was inevitable, so is that. In my opinion. It will happen because nobody is going to provide an answer to the "should" question and it is going to be somebody's job to make sure that the flow of people does stop, one way or another.

There is going to be a die-off. The question is how, when and where it happens, and who it happens to, not whether or not it happens.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

AutomaticEarth wrote: :(
Why the sad face? Surely this is the right move? Indefinite detention is totally wrong, replacing with a 28 day cap seems very reasonable. Perfectly long enough to charge, accept or deport people.
AutomaticEarth
Posts: 823
Joined: 08 Nov 2010, 00:09

Post by AutomaticEarth »

clv101 wrote:
AutomaticEarth wrote: :(
Why the sad face? Surely this is the right move? Indefinite detention is totally wrong, replacing with a 28 day cap seems very reasonable. Perfectly long enough to charge, accept or deport people.
The sad face was for another 10k migrants wandering about on Britain's streets... looking at the rise in homeless over the last year or so (many foreign from what I can see), these are people we can ill-afford IMHO. But yes you're right about the indefinite detention part.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

AutomaticEarth wrote:
The sad face was for another 10k migrants wandering about on Britain's streets... looking at the rise in homeless over the last year or so (many foreign from what I can see), these are people we can ill-afford IMHO. But yes you're right about the indefinite detention part.
Is the sad face at the thought of 10k migrants or at 10k people wandering the streets looking for shelter?

I've just spent a few days in Wearside and Teesside staying with my immigrant friend from Iran. There are some immigrants in the area but nothing like as many as in London. There are a great many empty houses and it's easy to buy a decent home for £30 to 50k. There is plenty of brown-field space for further building and it is clear that the local economy would benefit from some increase in population.

Highlight of my trip was a visit to Tenemos, the UK's largest art-work, created by that Indian immigrant Anish Kapoor, that now dominates the Middlesborough sky-line. Our cultural experience is enriched.

We also visited Cercle d’Art des Travailleurs de Plantation Congolaise, art that highlights the way the UK has benefited materially at the cost of Africans by the unfair trade over centuries and which continues today. The British have stolen so much; is it a wonder that Africans would like to enjoy a share of what was theirs?
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13501
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:
I've just spent a few days in Wearside and Teesside staying with my immigrant friend from Iran. There are some immigrants in the area but nothing like as many as in London. There are a great many empty houses and it's easy to buy a decent home for £30 to 50k. There is plenty of brown-field space for further building and it is clear that the local economy would benefit from some increase in population.
What jobs are they going to do?

The reason people can "buy a decent home for £30K to £50K" is because there is no work there.
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

:shock: go on the dole have babys and take over europe.

And my family were either miners or farmers, africans didnt cause this country to develop and we don't owe them a damn thing.

Give them your house biff
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

you have hundreds of thousands of white south africans living in squatter camps,because of anti white laws they are being murdered daily .

Africans got societys they didnt build and they don't deserve but were given to them.

Let them make something for themselves for once, I would try a experiment leave stop aid stop trade and see what happens with africa .
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

https://www.censorbugbear.org/

Look at african history since the 1960s whites being murdered and driven out, talk of rainbow nations to fool idiot whites .

The same thing is happening in europe and america.

I dont wish to be a minority, if you want that if your white go to south africa or zimbabwe and see what its like
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
AutomaticEarth
Posts: 823
Joined: 08 Nov 2010, 00:09

Post by AutomaticEarth »

Is the sad face at the thought of 10k migrants or at 10k people wandering the streets looking for shelter?
The sad face is more mainly at the thought of 10k more migrants, but also a significant number of them ending up on Britain's streets - a double-whammy. IMHO I think it would be better for all concerned, if they were not here in the first place. Prevention is generally better than cure.... 8)
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

AutomaticEarth wrote:
Is the sad face at the thought of 10k migrants or at 10k people wandering the streets looking for shelter?
The sad face is more mainly at the thought of 10k more migrants, but also a significant number of them ending up on Britain's streets - a double-whammy. IMHO I think it would be better for all concerned, if they were not here in the first place. Prevention is generally better than cure.... 8)
Indeed, I think that's what many people have been saying all for some time. That perhaps we shouldn't be exporting the weapons used in these conflicts, that we shouldn't be perpetuating trade deals that disadvantage poorer nations, and, what's likely to become the biggy, we shouldn't be emitting so much greenhouse gas, causing local environmental disruption. Note the Arab Spring might trace its trigger to the Russian heatwave, resulting grain export ban and food price spike in Egypt, and the Syrian civil war might have been triggered by the most severe drought in the region for hundreds of years.

We can't change the past - but we could make different decisions today that would improve the future situation from what it might otherwise be.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13501
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:
AutomaticEarth wrote:
Is the sad face at the thought of 10k migrants or at 10k people wandering the streets looking for shelter?
The sad face is more mainly at the thought of 10k more migrants, but also a significant number of them ending up on Britain's streets - a double-whammy. IMHO I think it would be better for all concerned, if they were not here in the first place. Prevention is generally better than cure.... 8)
Indeed, I think that's what many people have been saying all for some time. That perhaps we shouldn't be exporting the weapons used in these conflicts, that we shouldn't be perpetuating trade deals that disadvantage poorer nations, and, what's likely to become the biggy, we shouldn't be emitting so much greenhouse gas, causing local environmental disruption. Note the Arab Spring might trace its trigger to the Russian heatwave, resulting grain export ban and food price spike in Egypt, and the Syrian civil war might have been triggered by the most severe drought in the region for hundreds of years.

We can't change the past - but we could make different decisions today that would improve the future situation from what it might otherwise be.
In other words "there are things our leaders could do that would mean the future just looks very grim, instead of looking extremely grim indeed."

Ultimately I don't think it makes any difference which of the multiple causes of these problems you call the trigger. There's a general pattern here for multiple problems that exacerbate each other, most of which look destined to get worse, and another pattern, which is the failure of human civilisation on a large scale to behave in ways designed not to make things worse.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

AutomaticEarth wrote:I think it would be better for all concerned, if they were not here in the first place. Prevention is generally better than cure.... 8)
Presumable the 'all concerned' includes the migrants. I expect they might have a different view under the circumstances of their war-ravaged homeland, but of course had the wars and the poverty and the other circumstances that push people into migration been prevented then there would not be the problem.

Here is a document with a dozen contributions looking for solutions:
http://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/wp-c ... 12-web.pdf
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Oh dear, we seem to have another migration push factor: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... trump-wins
More than one-quarter of Americans would consider moving to another country such as Canada if businessman Donald Trump wins the presidency, according to a new poll.

Twenty-eight percent of those surveyed in the Morning Consult/Vox poll released Tuesday said they would likely consider leaving the country if Trump were president, while 65 percent said they would stay.
Post Reply