SURVEY: Should EU countries continue to accept refugees and migrants?

[simple1]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

That's wrong. The Americans are mainly responsible for that chaos, death and terror. Do they take refugees?

Yes. According to UNHCR, the United States is the world's top refugee resettlement country. Of the 14.4 million refugees of concern to UNHCR around the world, less than one per cent is submitted for resettlement. However, you have to remember that only 28 countries have a resettlement program & to date only around 105k places p.a. have been allotted.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

Edited September 7, 2015 by simple1

[maderaroja]

I think the U.S. should take more of them but also I think Europe should take more from Latin America. Result? Better Mexican food in Europe and then later Thailand.

The U.S. will not take any more than they must because they are not christians. The U.S. is strictly a chirstian country.

[thaibeachlovers]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

Oh change the record please, birth rates in the UK have rocketed since the Labour & Tory governments threw the doors open to the world. Any strategy which is not formed with control as a pivotal component is not a strategy at all.

Immigration is no exception, and currently there is not sufficient housing and infrastructure in the UK for the people who live there now, nevermind adding 800,000 to the annual influx of 600,000 per annum (not to mention the many thousands of illegal immigrants). These numbers are ridiculous and unsustainable; how can we be in a position to help others if we do not first ensure we remain strong enough to help - and that means having enough homes, schools, jobs and hospital places for everyone first.

Yes, help the refugees by funding the best help available in the bordering countries - bring the UN to bear and make sure the host countries treat them humanely. Also, with a pool of 4 million refugees to select from, why in 3 years has there been no effort made to train, arm and mobilise a liberation force backed by Western air power & logistics? I'll tell you why, because they don't want that to happen!

Encouraging people to get into the sea and risk thousands of lives is what's morally wrong here.

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

How many refugees does Ireland take on a population basis compared to other countries?

Ireland was very reluctant to take refugees last time I was there, and a dark face was a rarity in Dublin.

[swissbie]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

I absolutely agree with you. First reason is humanity and second is self preservation. Population in most european countries are aging fast and declining, especially in some eastern european countries at an incredible pace. These refugees have to be accepted and then integrated.

[Jingthing]

I think the U.S. should take more of them but also I think Europe should take more from Latin America. Result? Better Mexican food in Europe and then later Thailand.

The U.S. will not take any more than they must because they are not christians. The U.S. is strictly a chirstian country.

You are very misinformed.

The USA is a secular nation with religious freedom for all.

It is true the majority of the American people identify as Christians so that impacts on the CULTURE but that is not the same thing as the ridiculous distortion you just posted.

I went to public schools (run by the state) in the U.S. There was no indoctrination in ANY religion.

Parents can choose to send children to private religious schools, that of course would be different, but that's a free CHOICE.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Gulfsailor]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

Agreed! So that would be Russia, USA and the EU countries....

How far do you want to go back? I'd say the UK is in that mix too. Drawing middle east countries with borders that make no sense ... this mess is endless.

Last time I checked the UK was stil an EU country... Although some ignorants would love to change that.

It always amazes me that many foreigners who settled in Thailand and complain the hardest about how difficult immigration here makes it for them, are the same ones who'd love to throw out all immigrants out of their home country, while at the same time whining about why it is so hard for their Thai wife or girlfriend to get a visa. Bigots, the lot of them.

You either want open borders for everyone, meaning you can live where you want, and so can anyone else, or you are in favor of closed borders, and everyone stays in their country of birth, no exception.

By the way, ALL significant economics agree that complete open border would increase wealth worldwide on a massive scale, with the poorest countries gaining around 300% in GDP and the richest countries will see an increase of 20% GDP.

[sawadee1947]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

That's wrong. The Americans are mainly responsible for that chaos, death and terror. Do they take refugees?

While I agree that United States (not American) foreign policies have precipitated many of these problems, those problems are with refugees. A refugee is someone fleeing from a problem. The majority of these people are not refugees -- they are fourth world migrants seeking to gain from others. This is not merely a refugee problem

who put this nonsense into your head? Brainwashed?

So you think people are leaving deliberately e.g.Syria because of gaining what??? Their lives??? Ok, that is right then !!!

[sawadee1947]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

Why is it only Europe's responsibility? What about Saudi helping their brothers?

I have lived in a Muslim country and they hate everything you ( assuming you aren't a Muslim ) believe in and want to make YOU conform to THEIR beliefs. Are you OK with that? Are you going to convert to Islam?

It is not my, or anyone else's responsibility to give Syrians a future. That is for them to do.

Many of the so called refugees are illegal economic migrants, not in fear of their lives at all.

There are millions of Phillipinos, a Christian culture, that will happily move to the west to work and pay taxes, and they will do so legally. Why are you so keen on having people that want to change your culture come to live with you?

I hope you are volunteering to take a few of those refugees to live in your house with you.

Before I came to Thailand I invited a Vietnamese family (Boat people 1979) living as refugees in my house. Indeed!! So YOU have no right to tell me anything. Also I lived in a Turkish society for many years as a respected business man. No Turkish did ever cheat me but some of my country. I have nothing against Muslims. There is no difference between them and "us". They have their God we have our.

And you example with Philippinos is BS. They are NOT refugees if they come into our countries.

Also Saudi Arabia is not an example. They are no "brothers". Saudis are SUNNIES. most Syrian refugees are ALAWITES

[simple1]

<snip>

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Think you will find your assertion to be incorrect. Germany has claimed they anticipate 800k refugees entering this year, they should all be registered & subjected to vetting prior to being granted asylum status. For example Germany has previously announced around 30% of refugee arrivals are from Balkan countries, nearly all of whom do not qualify for asylum status & required to return to their country of origin. On the downside Germany, to date, has only been able to return 15% of declined applicants, no idea how those remaining are able to support themselves. Do they work illegally, does Germany provide welfare until they are forced out, what are the facts? I asked this question in another topic, so far with no response.

The next question to be addressed will EU countries alter their refugee / asylum policies in the coming weeks / months is response to the enormous political, moral & ethical pressures they are under & to what extent. For the moment donor countries are increasing funding for UNHCR, IOM and NGOs in countries bordering Syria & elsewhere that should have a positive effect in reducing the numbers trying to enter Europe.

[timbothaivisa]

Oh change the record please, birth rates in the UK have rocketed since the Labour & Tory governments threw the doors open to the world. Any strategy which is not formed with control as a pivotal component is not a strategy at all.

Immigration is no exception, and currently there is not sufficient housing and infrastructure in the UK for the people who live there now, nevermind adding 800,000 to the annual influx of 600,000 per annum (not to mention the many thousands of illegal immigrants). These numbers are ridiculous and unsustainable; how can we be in a position to help others if we do not first ensure we remain strong enough to help - and that means having enough homes, schools, jobs and hospital places for everyone first.

Yes, help the refugees by funding the best help available in the bordering countries - bring the UN to bear and make sure the host countries treat them humanely. Also, with a pool of 4 million refugees to select from, why in 3 years has there been no effort made to train, arm and mobilise a liberation force backed by Western air power & logistics? I'll tell you why, because they don't want that to happen!

Encouraging people to get into the sea and risk thousands of lives is what's morally wrong here.

Yeah, that's (Full of selfishness. It's a shame) the expected answer according 2 sayings:

Wash me, but don't make me wet" or

Let me have my cake and eat it too

Go dtaga do riocht

It's nothing to do with selfishness, it's everything to do with common sense. How does it make sense to de-populate an entire nation, and surrender it to ISIS??

[timbothaivisa]

You either want open borders for everyone, meaning you can live where you want, and so can anyone else, or you are in favor of closed borders, and everyone stays in their country of birth, no exception.

By the way, ALL significant economics agree that complete open border would increase wealth worldwide on a massive scale, with the poorest countries gaining around 300% in GDP and the richest countries will see an increase of 20% GDP.

This argument is so moronic is defies belief - try telling Turkey or Lebanon or any country bordering Syria that they should have no border - have a dose of common sense for everyone's sake

[JHolmesJr]

Usually i would say yes....but mass unlimited migration of muslim males under current tensions between radical islam and the western way of life make this a move that can only end in tears.

[Ulic]

I voted yes but only those that are genuine political refugees. What I also believe is that should

be limited to those who are in danger. If they are in camps in Turkey or Jordan, they are no

longer in danger and should be returned. Christians in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt etc..... are in

danger and should be accepted. (I am an atheist).

All that said when Germany sends out the open arms welcome, all European countries

Greece, Hungary, etc....should spend there limited recourses shipping them by bus, directly

to the German boarder. Do not bother with paperwork. Germany has sent a very, very

clear message. Come and come now. 200k last year, 900k this year with the open arms

message I am thinking 4-5 million next year. Make it a German problem not the EU.

[tigermonkey]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

That's wrong. The Americans are mainly responsible for that chaos, death and terror. Do they take refugees?

While I agree that United States (not American) foreign policies have precipitated many of these problems, those problems are with refugees. A refugee is someone fleeing from a problem. The majority of these people are not refugees -- they are fourth world migrants seeking to gain from others. This is not merely a refugee problem

who put this nonsense into your head? Brainwashed?

So you think people are leaving deliberately e.g.Syria because of gaining what??? Their lives??? Ok, that is right then !!!

Why don't you read carefully and think, instead of spouting like that. I said that someone leaving a problem, such as in Syria is a refugee when they arrive at a safe venue. When that person continues migrating through many countries to reach the economy of their choice, they are not a refugee but a fourth world economic migrant ( opportunist).

[Oziex1]

Allow them to go to the countries whose foreign policies are responsible for the mess.

That's wrong. The Americans are mainly responsible for that chaos, death and terror. Do they take refugees?

I don't think you read between the lines of my post very well.

If American foreign policy has in any way resulted in this fiasco then I am suggesting they find room in their country for these displaced people. The allies of America should also open their doors.

The so called developed world really needs to look at the root cause of this and deal with it at the basic level, however the meddling in the ME doesn't appear to be ending any time soon, the US is having an election soon so stand by for a new way to mess things up.

[brain150]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

Oh change the record please, birth rates in the UK have rocketed since the Labour & Tory governments threw the doors open to the world. Any strategy which is not formed with control as a pivotal component is not a strategy at all.

Immigration is no exception, and currently there is not sufficient housing and infrastructure in the UK for the people who live there now, nevermind adding 800,000 to the annual influx of 600,000 per annum (not to mention the many thousands of illegal immigrants). These numbers are ridiculous and unsustainable; how can we be in a position to help others if we do not first ensure we remain strong enough to help - and that means having enough homes, schools, jobs and hospital places for everyone first.

Yes, help the refugees by funding the best help available in the bordering countries - bring the UN to bear and make sure the host countries treat them humanely. Also, with a pool of 4 million refugees to select from, why in 3 years has there been no effort made to train, arm and mobilise a liberation force backed by Western air power & logistics? I'll tell you why, because they don't want that to happen!

Encouraging people to get into the sea and risk thousands of lives is what's morally wrong here.

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

You are falling for the big PROPAGANDA from the people who actually are right now trying to DESTROY Europe !

Surely humanitarian aid is necessary BUT first you should know that 90% of the so called refugees are males between 18 and 35 !

This does NOT look like refugees at all !!!

What you are seeing is refugees being used as a weapon against the european population !

The people who are doing this have no empathy at all ...

As long as the root core of the problem is not solved there is no way anybody can help the refugees.

Problem is that especially the UK, France the US and Germany have caused this problem starting with the

highly illegal war in Yugoslavia. Libya, Syria .... you name it.

There is no way the amount of people coming to europe can be integrated so this simply means social problems on an enormous scale.

Helping these refugees is necessary and a must ... the question is how !

[jt1]

The flow of migrants and refugees has continued unabated. In your opinion, do you think that the EU countries should continue to accept these arrivals?

Please feel free to post a comment.

[jt1]

No

[Billy Bloggs]

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare.

So why then bring in a whole lot of older people who then make your average age even older, who soak up social welfare etc etc. Plus down the line want what everyone else has who has been in the country their whole lives. Oh and by the way poor refugees isnt really gonna cut it either, stop off in saudi arabia why dont they, lots of money there.

[daveAustin]

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

Oh gawd, hang on a sec while I barf!

Number one at what, allowing their people to blow up innocent civilians of another country? For that matter, I don't see the Irish rolling out the welcome mat, or indeed hordes of migrants heading for those dreary shores. lol

I know your type, let's bash the UK where possible because I feel inferior. More people have migrated there in the last few years than most of the rest of the EU countries put together. It's a small island, there's no space left! Add to that the real possibility that IS folk are mixed in with these 'refugees' and you see why governments are baulking at all this. Yes we should take the desperate in but going open arms is not the way, lest you end up completely diluting culture and big future problems.

Merkel is not doing this out the goodness of her heart, it's all about their lacking workforce and past misdemeanours. Just ask your average German and see what response you get.

[timbothaivisa]

Helping these refugees is necessary and a must ... the question is how !

The same way all the other refugees have been helped in the past; make them comfortable, have medical expertise & schools in the camps - but most importantly - mobilise the male refugees of fighting age, and build an Arab coalition with professional troops to back the Syrians, support them with western air power & logistics, and get that country back. Why are we still sitting here wringing our hands 3 years down the line?

Problem is that especially the UK, France the US and Germany have caused this problem starting with the

highly illegal war in Yugoslavia. Libya, Syria .... you name it.

Yes exactly, and the consequences of those actions were as calculated as they are obvious. The people everyone is expecting to put things right, are the architects of the entire thing. Check Mate to the NWO, but everyone's too blind to see it

[Jingthing]

I think the situation should be shared globally. For example, Chile would be a great place and they're now a first world country. How about Japan? They need younger people. Obviously there can never be perfect justice in sharing the load. That's reality. I also think since this is an international crisis that for now there should be careful screening for economic vs. war refugees. Easier said than done though for people who are risking their lives to get to Europe from the Middle East AND Africa.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[h90]

Yeah that'll work.

Germany looked worse after second worldwar.

And most of the "refugees" are migrants not refugees. And there are many other countries they could go. Why Muslims want to come to Germany and not to a country that has a similar culture? Pakistan for example. Or Malaysia.

[h90]

I think the situation should be shared globally. For example, Chile would be a great place and they're now a first world country. How about Japan? They need younger people. Obviously there can never be perfect justice in sharing the load. That's reality. I also think since this is an international crisis that for now there should be careful screening for economic vs. war refugees. Easier said than done though for people who are risking their lives to get to Europe from the Middle East AND Africa.

I think no country want young uneducated Muslims.....And there won't be many educated Japanese refugees.

[Jingthing]

Post withdrawn.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Gulfsailor]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

Oh change the record please, birth rates in the UK have rocketed since the Labour & Tory governments threw the doors open to the world. Any strategy which is not formed with control as a pivotal component is not a strategy at all.

Immigration is no exception, and currently there is not sufficient housing and infrastructure in the UK for the people who live there now, nevermind adding 800,000 to the annual influx of 600,000 per annum (not to mention the many thousands of illegal immigrants). These numbers are ridiculous and unsustainable; how can we be in a position to help others if we do not first ensure we remain strong enough to help - and that means having enough homes, schools, jobs and hospital places for everyone first.

Yes, help the refugees by funding the best help available in the bordering countries - bring the UN to bear and make sure the host countries treat them humanely. Also, with a pool of 4 million refugees to select from, why in 3 years has there been no effort made to train, arm and mobilise a liberation force backed by Western air power & logistics? I'll tell you why, because they don't want that to happen!

Encouraging people to get into the sea and risk thousands of lives is what's morally wrong here.

Germany is taking more than 800000 refugees this year despite housing problems and so called "illegals". Why Germany will do that? Because of their guarantee of giving asylum to EVERYBODY. No other country got that law and right in their constitution.

Of course it's a challenge but ALL European countries are involved but not the cherry picker's country UK?

First we have to take the refugees giving them shelter, food and medical supply, then language lessons/education, last give them a tax paying job: win-win

Good example Sweden: everybody can enter this country. If he finds a tax paying job within 3 months he can stay. For me the best solution.

Actually there is a "GOOD COUNTRY INDEX". I'm proud to say that Ireland is No. 1

You are falling for the big PROPAGANDA from the people who actually are right now trying to DESTROY Europe !

Surely humanitarian aid is necessary BUT first you should know that 90% of the so called refugees are males between 18 and 35 !

This does NOT look like refugees at all !!!

What you are seeing is refugees being used as a weapon against the european population !

The people who are doing this have no empathy at all ...

As long as the root core of the problem is not solved there is no way anybody can help the refugees.

Problem is that especially the UK, France the US and Germany have caused this problem starting with the

highly illegal war in Yugoslavia. Libya, Syria .... you name it.

There is no way the amount of people coming to europe can be integrated so this simply means social problems on an enormous scale.

Helping these refugees is necessary and a must ... the question is how !

Intentionally or due to ignorance ( don't know what is worse), your comment about 90% of the Syrian refugees are males between 18 and 35 is a total LIE.

Syrian refugees are spread over all age groups and male / female ratio is 50/50. Males between 18 and 59 make up 21.8% of the total. Total children under 18 make up over 50% of all Syrian refugees.

[Khunangkaro]

"As she(Hirsi Ali) sees it, Islamic society is inimical(unfriendly; hostile) to development. 'So everyone wants to move here(Europe), and they want to make this place look like there. We shouldn't cling to the customs and beliefs that caused us to move out in the first place. Unfortunately people in the Third World think that just by moving house they leave their misery behind. And that's what the integration debate is about: if you take those values with you and come here, it's not going to change your misery.' "

From very interesting article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali :

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/feb/04/islam.religion

I like that quote so much where it fits most Moslems migrating to Farangland but also many Farangs moving to Thailand.

[timbothaivisa]

Intentionally or due to ignorance ( don't know what is worse), your comment about 90% of the Syrian refugees are males between 18 and 35 is a total LIE.

Syrian refugees are spread over all age groups and male / female ratio is 50/50. Males between 18 and 59 make up 21.8% of the total. Total children under 18 make up over 50% of all Syrian refugees.

The number of male refugees may well be 50% of the total persons displaced from Syria, yet many in bordering countries report that the vast majority of those seeking access to Europe are (male) economic migrants.

Watching people cry out for un-checked mass-migration from a terrrorised war zone is as if some disease has taken hold of their brains, derelicting the most basic notions of common sense - get it into your head, ISIS have promised to use this crisis to infiltrate thousands of fighters into the EU!

Edited September 7, 2015 by timbothaivisa

[wabothai]

Bush owns a large ranch in Texas.

[DoctorB]

I am very much ashamed to see so many ignorant and narrow minded people on this website. Of course it's Europe's duty to take ALL refugees coming from Syria or other bombed countries with war and terror. It's called HUMANITY. If we all times point on our culture then it's up to us to support and help. Not by giving them money to stay away from Europe but help them to find a new home. Nobody of these poor people left their home because of economical problems but of fear. Fear for their lives. Everybody with children try to do best for them having a secure future. But those from e.g. Syria they don't have any future if they would stay there.

Another point is that all those countries (no 1 is UK) which deny to take a greater number of those poor refugees forget that our society is getting older fast and WE will have big problems in the nearer future with our pensions and social welfare. The number of retirees is growing but the number of working people is declining. It's unbelievable that Cameron can't see it! But anyway we have to take refugees as a big chance for development of our countries not as intruders or enimies. Meet them with respect and not with hate. Help them but don't kick them out.

By the way, those problems with IS and Syrian war are cuased by wrong American politics.

One assumes, from your participation on this forum and your choice of poster name, that you live in Thailand. So, to get this clear, you live in a country that has very tight immigration controls, that would take non of these people as refugees and that has no social security handouts for its own people let alone foreigners. Yet you presume to tell the people of Europe that they should take these people in, in the name of humanity, however many may come, and provide for them all the necessities of life from the public purse.

If you actually live, work and pay taxes in Ireland I might be impressed; otherwise you are just another "bleeding-heart, feel-good" hypocrite determined to have your cake and eat it.

In my view no-one who lives in Thailand is justified in lecturing the people of Europe for lack of compassion to the needy. If you don't feel able to lecture the Thais on compassion, don't try telling the people of Europe how they should deal with an almost unprecedented situation.