Should The West Be More Like Thailand In Its Refugee Attitude?

[Brewster67]

What a silly question in the OP, really?. What any country should do is examine whether they take their reponsibilities under international law seriously or not. I suppose here here we are speaking of the UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 and later protocols and ammendments.

If any signatory does not want to abide by the conventions they should be honest and withdraw from them. None of this rubbish of talking big regarding human rights and doing otherwise.

UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 but ist that the part that says "first safe country"...well many of the millions that are 90% male between 21-35 years of age have travelled through numerous "safe: countries, in fact most have lived and or worked in Turkey for a few years and have been targeted by human traffickers for the financial gains. Not one single person from Syria, Iran Eritea etc should be anywhere on European soil seeking refuge legally. Face reality, they are all economic migrants and mostly ungrateful for the assistance they are receiving to boot

This is as ridiculous as making all international flights illegal and then force travellers to stay in the first country where immigration allows them to stay.

Maybe the 1951 UNCHR convention is too old, more people used boats in these times.

I have to say.... That is one of the weirdest posts I have read for a long time.

So you are saying that ALL airline passengers are subject to refugee legislation?

Is it me, or is this a barmy statement?

Edited November 1, 2015 by Brewster67

[arunsakda]

YES,YES,YES YES,YES, WHAT MORE CAN ONE SAY the west will not be the place we knew and loved in 20 to 30 years,it will become a cesspit like the country's those of a certain faith left

Yes, the place you

loved so much, you

emigrated to Thailand

Please read again , LOVED SO MUCH , yes loved it , not what it has become and what it will turn into , is that simple enough for you to understand?

We all have different reasons for coming to Thailand, and I would say very very few came here because they dislike their own country so much that they have decided to tear up their lives and move to a foreign land on the other side of the world.

When I came here 5 years ago, it was always mine and my wife's intentions to establish something here, then make a small family and go to the UK to educate them and make a business there, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make an argument for going there now.

Thailand was always supposed to be temporary, but now is looking more and more permanent.

I still love the UK and love many people over there, but I seriously hate what it is becoming.

People of different ethnicities are technically 'sub-species' of the human race. It was noted by a famous naturalist who I can not for the life of me recall his name. But made a very valid point that across the whole spectrum of nature, the over-riding rule is that no sub-species can survive together, as one will always attack the other. which is why all sub-species exist separately.

Add to this mankind is hard-wired with a tribalist instict which has been essential for his survival, which can still be seen all over the world, wars, borders, football hooliganism.... the list is endless.

This is why the 'multi-cultural' experiment has failed everywhere it has been attempted.

Cultures and civilisations clash.... They never intergrate.

People of different ethnicities are not "technically sub-species".

About morphological differences they are accounted for by about .01 percent of the human genome. The concept of "race" itself has no basis in biological science. It is entirely a social construct. I think your conclusions that cultures never integrate is premature and untrue. The shortcomings of UK/Europe stem from failures of the social welfare state to deliver unlimited promises to all comers combined with neoliberal economic policies. Yes, if we are to have nation states with borders, there has to be some kind of limit as resources and opportunities are finite. Unfortunately the portion of your analysis which appears akin to biological determinism sounds like it could have come straight from the pages of Der Stürmer. These ideas have quite a persistent nature although they have fallen from favour in academic circles.

Edited November 1, 2015 by arunsakda

[micmichd]

What a silly question in the OP, really?. What any country should do is examine whether they take their reponsibilities under international law seriously or not. I suppose here here we are speaking of the UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 and later protocols and ammendments.

If any signatory does not want to abide by the conventions they should be honest and withdraw from them. None of this rubbish of talking big regarding human rights and doing otherwise.

UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 but ist that the part that says "first safe country"...well many of the millions that are 90% male between 21-35 years of age have travelled through numerous "safe: countries, in fact most have lived and or worked in Turkey for a few years and have been targeted by human traffickers for the financial gains. Not one single person from Syria, Iran Eritea etc should be anywhere on European soil seeking refuge legally. Face reality, they are all economic migrants and mostly ungrateful for the assistance they are receiving to boot

This is as ridiculous as making all international flights illegal and then force travellers to stay in the first country where immigration allows them to stay.

Maybe the 1951 UNCHR convention is too old, more people used boats in these times.

I have to say.... That is one of the weirdest posts I have read for a long time.

So you are saying that ALL airline passengers are subject to refugee legislation?

Is it me, or is this a barmy statement?

Isn't Freedom of Movement a Human Right, too?

I'm not advocating restrictions on international travel, I just wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to put restrictions on just one part of people. Guess nobody leaves his home without reasons, even I would have stayed in Germany would they not have insulted my GF and me.

[micmichd]

What a silly question in the OP, really?. What any country should do is examine whether they take their reponsibilities under international law seriously or not. I suppose here here we are speaking of the UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 and later protocols and ammendments.

If any signatory does not want to abide by the conventions they should be honest and withdraw from them. None of this rubbish of talking big regarding human rights and doing otherwise.

UNHCR Refugee convention of 1951 but ist that the part that says "first safe country"...well many of the millions that are 90% male between 21-35 years of age have travelled through numerous "safe: countries, in fact most have lived and or worked in Turkey for a few years and have been targeted by human traffickers for the financial gains. Not one single person from Syria, Iran Eritea etc should be anywhere on European soil seeking refuge legally. Face reality, they are all economic migrants and mostly ungrateful for the assistance they are receiving to boot

This is as ridiculous as making all international flights illegal and then force travellers to stay in the first country where immigration allows them to stay.

Maybe the 1951 UNCHR convention is too old, more people used boats in these times.

I have to say.... That is one of the weirdest posts I have read for a long time.

So you are saying that ALL airline passengers are subject to refugee legislation?

Is it me, or is this a barmy statement?

Isn't Freedom of Movement a Human Right, too?

I'm not advocating restrictions on international travel, I just wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to put restrictions on just one part of people. Guess nobody leaves his home without reasons, even I would have stayed in Germany would they not have insulted my GF and me.

[Brewster67]

This is as ridiculous as making all international flights illegal and then force travellers to stay in the first country where immigration allows them to stay.

Maybe the 1951 UNCHR convention is too old, more people used boats in these times.

I have to say.... That is one of the weirdest posts I have read for a long time.

So you are saying that ALL airline passengers are subject to refugee legislation?

Is it me, or is this a barmy statement?

Isn't Freedom of Movement a Human Right, too?

I'm not advocating restrictions on international travel, I just wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to put restrictions on just one part of people. Guess nobody leaves his home without reasons, even I would have stayed in Germany would they not have insulted my GF and me.

No... Freedom of movement is not a human right... It is a privilege.

When the citizens of a nation state have worked tirelessly to mold their society and country into a successful nation, and built up a health service, education system, industry, economy and welfare state into a booming success, it is not a human right to just walk in and take a slice of the pie without having contributed to it.

These successful societies have been a product of much hard work and in many cases great sacrifices have been made and are build to a standard that caters only for the size of the population they serve... Not millions of extra people who have been unable to make their own countries successful.

You made a strange parallel between illegal immigration and everyday legal travelers.... That just doesn't fly in reality.

Anyway, if you want to talk about human rights, I suggest you look at the cultures of the people making their way into Europe. Most won't recognise what a human right was. They are 90% muslim... What do they know about human rights?

[micmichd]

Freedom of Movement is not a privilege, it's a human right.

I travelled through Asia in 1969, all overland or by boat, with almost not a penny in my pocket. Then I made career in Europe, and now I pay back. It's credit,isn't it?

If Freedom of Movement is a Human Right, then of course Muslims have this right, too.

You simply make it a privilege because you think you have the money to do so. Pretty soon you might return to Farangistan to find out you have nothing at all. And then you fade away.

[duanebigsby]

So a country being overrun, the shit being bombed out of it, in total turmoil and only a fraction are "genuine refugees"?

They are only going to the countries for welfare handouts?

How narrow minded the anti refugee voices are.. There is a problem that was created by the US and Coalition involvement in the Middle East

which needs addressing. But to say people are just coming for welfare cheques is narrow minded.

Answer 4 questions, why are only 20% from Syria, the rest from Pakistan, Iran Eritea and sub Africa, 2. Why are 90% males between 21-35 years old 3. why do they risk their lives crossing the Med then trekking through 6 or 7 other countries to reach Germany, Sweden etc when they were safe in Turkey or other countries and 4. why isn't Saudi etc opening there doors to them, they are neigbouring countries of the same culture....Give qualified answers to these questions and maybe then some of us would have sympathy for them

I'll attempt a reasonable answer

1) The Syrian refugee crisis started early summer, the statistics started beginning of the year so numbers of people fleeing their own war torn countries has been counted for many more months than the Syrians.

The numbers are skewed.

2) Stay or be conscripted to fight in a dirty war. The men of conscription age don't want to fight. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they'll start jihad when they are the exact opposite, they don't want the fighting.

3) Would you rather be in a prosperous country or a poor one like Turkey. And Turkey has taken 2 million of them in. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they're going to where the welfare is good, but history has shown most immigrants soon join the workforce and contribute to society.

4) How could I possibly respond on behalf of Saudi Arabia, the most horrific humans rights abuser country on the planet?

I absolutely agree they should take refugees, but to suggest that I can give you a reason why they don't is ludicrous. Why would you look to me to explain and excuse Saudi's behaviour is a stretch.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/reality-check/2015/sep/19/daily-mail-syrian-refugees-story-three-problems

[duanebigsby]

Its always amusing to me as an American, whenever I hear any complaints from other Americans about "Sharia law hijacking The USA" I laugh..USA has not the slightest clue as to what happens when those certain types of Muslims infiltrate, they complain, but US has not experienced anywhere near the sort of crap the UK has

Of course not.

The US hasn't accepted anyone fleeing from the war that they created.

I think you missed my point Actually UK's problem goes back far beyond any "War'' about which you speak.. Britain has been dealing with a barrage of muslims coming into the country since the end of the Empire..OH and what about the Skypes Picot agreement huh...Yup that was the UK redrawing all these silly non existent borders after WWI and the break up of the Ottoman empire...that is arguably the BIGGEST reason any of this nonsense is happening right now in the region...drawing up lines of nations the way we think of them of in the west was what doomed this whole obviously TRIBAL region....

I would agree.

When Britain and Germany owned East Africa it was divided by European countries with disregard for tribal boundaries leaving a legacy of distrust and infighting.

[duanebigsby]

So a country being overrun, the shit being bombed out of it, in total turmoil and only a fraction are "genuine refugees"?

They are only going to the countries for welfare handouts?

How narrow minded the anti refugee voices are.. There is a problem that was created by the US and Coalition involvement in the Middle East

which needs addressing. But to say people are just coming for welfare cheques is narrow minded.

Us and coalition? ???? I belive the president of Syria is the one causing this and did it not all start with the people revolting against him in the Arab spring era??? Oh no sorry forgot it's all America's and coalition partners faults why because it suits narrow minded goody goody's

I am sticking to my opinion that if the U.S. had never gone into Iraq and heavily supported Saudi terrorism, this would not be happening.

[Smurkster]

So a country being overrun, the shit being bombed out of it, in total turmoil and only a fraction are "genuine refugees"?

They are only going to the countries for welfare handouts?

How narrow minded the anti refugee voices are.. There is a problem that was created by the US and Coalition involvement in the Middle East

which needs addressing. But to say people are just coming for welfare cheques is narrow minded.

Us and coalition? ???? I belive the president of Syria is the one causing this and did it not all start with the people revolting against him in the Arab spring era??? Oh no sorry forgot it's all America's and coalition partners faults why because it suits narrow minded goody goody's

I am sticking to my opinion that if the U.S. had never gone into Iraq and heavily supported Saudi terrorism, this would not be happening.

US-led Phony, wrong invasion of Iraq which is arguably the worst foreign policy blunder of our time had a lot to do with it, but naive and not accurate to say that this would not "be happening" if not for the United States and 'coalition partners' its years and years of tribal led crap, let it be known that I also personally believe things would be temporarily better if Saddam had stayed around, but for how long?? this shit has been brewing for decades...

I'm far from a jingoist, I call the things the way I see them...UK culpability in the whole grand scheme of things is right up there..again students let us refer to Sykes-Picot agreement

[Brewster67]

Freedom of Movement is not a privilege, it's a human right.

I travelled through Asia in 1969, all overland or by boat, with almost not a penny in my pocket. Then I made career in Europe, and now I pay back. It's credit,isn't it?

If Freedom of Movement is a Human Right, then of course Muslims have this right, too.

You simply make it a privilege because you think you have the money to do so. Pretty soon you might return to Farangistan to find out you have nothing at all. And then you fade away.

Now you are talking complete and utter crap.

I assume the countries you traveled through knew you were there and that you both entered and exited legally?

Did you stay in each one and claim unemployment benefits in each country?... Free healthcare?... did they educate your kids for free in those countries?

The fact they even let you in those countries in the first place is a privilege..... not because it was your 'human right'.

Seriously, without trying to sound too insulting, but your personal philosophy is bordering on the ridiculous.

[arjunadawn]

Sadly, it ultimately makes little difference if a country is able to protect its culture and borders when its neighbors succumb to the very threat a country successfully avoided. It is only then a matter of time before the terrible results act upon the wise country.

[i claudius]

The problem is ,that cultures and people from different ones do not integrate,we can say but Thai and Farangs do ok,black girls or black men can marry white people and yes you are dead right,in small numbers its not a problem.my old home town was a perfect example,we had ,Muslims,Christians,black,white and Brown all rubbing along ,although I must say the Muslims always stayed together,unlike other people who lived next door to each other ,it's only when the immigrants become to many then the trouble starts ,people see them in a different light ,when a Mosque was built and the Muslims started

to want everything their own way,funnily enough it was the black people who started against them ,now everyone resents them,there are just to many ,same if Thailand was overrun by us demanding special treatment ,we would soon get our marching orders ,different cultures are ok if there are not many intruders ,but that soon turns nasty when there are to many ,no matter what the Guardian and its half a dozen readers say

Edited November 1, 2015 by i claudius

[i claudius]

One other thing no matter how far we have evolved,we are still basically just another animal on the face of planet Earth,and as we know when push comes to shove,most animal species stick together, and some of our species have not evolved very far up the scale and some are not even on the bottom rung

The ones higher up want little to do with those lower down, LOL

Edited November 1, 2015 by i claudius

[Keesters]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Keesters

[Brewster67]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

[cobbler]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

Absolutely. However. They are going to outbreed us in Australia. The muslims have already taken over 25% of sydney. Like it or not,thats a fact. Now they are getting into parliment,controlling local councils. We pay halal certification on many products. Eg Vegamite,Cadbury chocolates,there is a massive list on the internet. They are here to takeover,make no mistake. Like it or not

[Brewster67]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

Absolutely. However. They are going to outbreed us in Australia. The muslims have already taken over 25% of sydney. Like it or not,thats a fact. Now they are getting into parliment,controlling local councils. We pay halal certification on many products. Eg Vegamite,Cadbury chocolates,there is a massive list on the internet. They are here to takeover,make no mistake. Like it or not

All the halal products carry a levy on them, a kind of Islamic tax, and goes to pay for the spread of Islam.... the ''Hijrah' across the globe.

If Aus carries on the way it is going, within my lifetime it will get to the stage of full sharia and an order to convert or die.

Women subjugated, gays executed and I think you know the rest.

I always said that Sweden was the canary in the coal mine, but I think I was wrong... I think that is now going to be Germany, it should almost certainly be the first to fall to Islam, and it will happen in a very bloody and violent way... This is going to be the saving grace for other countries spiraling down the same route, and hopefully there will be an opportunity to prevent it.

I feel sorry for the people of Germany, I have a few on my facebook, and they are all very very worried for their kids' futures.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Brewster67

[Smurkster]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

Absolutely. However. They are going to outbreed us in Australia. The muslims have already taken over 25% of sydney. Like it or not,thats a fact. Now they are getting into parliment,controlling local councils. We pay halal certification on many products. Eg Vegamite,Cadbury chocolates,there is a massive list on the internet. They are here to takeover,make no mistake. Like it or not

All the halal products carry a levy on them, a kind of Islamic tax, and fi goes to pay for the spread of Islam.... the ''Hijrah' across the globe.

If Aus carries on the way it is going, within my lifetime it will get to the stage of full sharia and an order to convert or die.

Women subjugated, gays executed and I think you know the rest.

while I understand your concern, don't you think your second to last statement is a bit hyperbolic?

[Brewster67]

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

Absolutely. However. They are going to outbreed us in Australia. The muslims have already taken over 25% of sydney. Like it or not,thats a fact. Now they are getting into parliment,controlling local councils. We pay halal certification on many products. Eg Vegamite,Cadbury chocolates,there is a massive list on the internet. They are here to takeover,make no mistake. Like it or not

All the halal products carry a levy on them, a kind of Islamic tax, and fi goes to pay for the spread of Islam.... the ''Hijrah' across the globe.

If Aus carries on the way it is going, within my lifetime it will get to the stage of full sharia and an order to convert or die.

Women subjugated, gays executed and I think you know the rest.

while I understand your concern, don't you think your second to last statement is a bit hyperbolic?

Nope.

[TheKnave]

In his book Deadlier Than The H-Bomb Wing-Commander Leonard Young states that there are only two reasons for Third World Immigration:

1. To pollute and destroy our race by mongrelization; and

2. To provide degenerate urban mobs which can be used for revolutionary purposes.

He clearly identified the real driving force behind the plan to destroy Britain when he wrote:

The Banking System which was foisted on this country in 1694 and during succeeding years over most of the world has been the main means by which the...... "the chosen people who are not allowed to be criticised"... have brought misery and impoverishment everywhere. By their manipulation of finance they have been the cause of most wars and economic and social troubles. They have been able to obtain control of governments and of the means of publicity (Press, Radio, TV, Films, Publishing Houses, News Services, etc.) and so have been able to suppress the truth and propagate the lie. This has enabled them to fool and bully the people of the world into following the most suicidal courses until the... "the chosen people who are not allowed to be criticised".... are now in the position of expecting to clamp final dominion upon the world by means of a supranational organisation and some form of irresistible world police force which they would control.

If you think we dont have censorship in Britain, try and buy a copy from any good bookshop or borrow one from a public library.

Another coward Jew-hater has crawled from under his rock. I suppose it was just a matter of time in this ill-conceived 'poll'.

So tedious.

[cobbler]

Tall popy syndrome

[arunsakda]

A little more here than the typical Eurocentrism and subtle bigotry so common on these threads.

Nativist fear mongering and islamophobia. Tabloid style manipulation of fact.

An ancient screed consisting solely of discredited anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

200 years since East India company sailors some migrated and UK muslim population now 5 percent. A few hundred thousand in Australia and Sweden population respectively.

Suddenly there will be gays executed and a Euro Caliphate? Rubbish. The refugees are not all Muslims by the way.

Sorry, the institutions of Liberalism are not that weak. Demographic transitions as always lower fertility as income and education increase.

By the way if world Muslim population is about 20 percent why should big cities in “multicultural” societies not be similar?

No evidence anywhere of migrants turning a host country to a cesspool. Quite the contrary. Peace and security breed happiness.

Manchester voted “best city to live in UK for 2015”.

The fact that oil monarchy’s and corrupt authoritarian states do not live up to moral obligations is no excuse for Western democracies to follow a poor example.

And while we are flaming them certainly America must feel an obligation to do more.

US flagged Cruise Vessels should be commandeered this Christmas (vacation plans canceled) so 100,000 migrants can be transported to Miami as soon as possible.

Can’t Israel muster the resources to absorb a few thousand, with all that West Bank land and new housing stock?

China, Russia and of course Central Asia, why do they not take some responsibility for resettlement of refugees?

Would be nice but not gonna happen.

Edited November 4, 2015 by arunsakda

[cobbler]

How about the rich muslim countries take responsibility for their own? Why does the west allways have to clean the mess up.? Have rich muslim countries accept no refugees at all. Why ? Because they dont want angry muslims in there countries. We should follow them.

[micmichd]

So, fighting in the clash of cultures is only for the young?

[arunsakda]

North Lincolnshire's pretty much White British is it not? Why was Scunthorpe not voted "best UK city to live in 2015"?

Stoke-on-Trent should be a paradise.

Perhaps something to do with economics as opposed to racialist pseudoscience and propaganda?

Edited November 4, 2015 by arunsakda

[Keesters]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

It's up to the host countries governments to send them back and not be so soft in letting them stay. The choice should not be with the refugee.

[cobbler]

Taking in refugees is fine if they stay just that; temporary refugees. They should NOT be granted permanent resident/nationality status except in VERY exceptional circumstances. Everything possible should be done to return them to their home countries a.s.a.p. including bombing the s**t out of whomever has caused the refugees to leave their birthplace in the first place. Refugees should be told to fit in with the country that is helping them, wearing appropriate clothes, learning the language and not demanding laws and places of worship not in keeping with the country that has given them help. Refugee status should only be given to the very old and the very young. Those able to fight for their country should be left to do just that not run away from it. Sounds harsh, yes, but I believe the west has become far to soft in taking in refugees and immigrants and that one day it will come back to bite them in the butt.

They won't be going back.

Would you go back to the sh-ithole you crawled out of when you can convert your successful host country into an Islamic state and still enjoy all the western trappings and first class social infrastructure of the western world?

It's up to the host countries governments to send them back and not be so soft in letting them stay. The choice should not be with the refugee.

western cuntries are controlled by dogooders and feminists. So they will never send them back. Australia had a prime minister with balls Tony Abbott. But the bloody sooks kicked him out. Now they have another sook doogooder trying to please everybody.

Thats something i love and respect about thailand. Its Thai Land not farang Land . If you want to live here, follow the rules,if not we kick you out. The way it should be

Edited November 4, 2015 by cobbler

[PattayaPhom]

So a country being overrun, the shit being bombed out of it, in total turmoil and only a fraction are "genuine refugees"?

They are only going to the countries for welfare handouts?

How narrow minded the anti refugee voices are.. There is a problem that was created by the US and Coalition involvement in the Middle East

which needs addressing. But to say people are just coming for welfare cheques is narrow minded.

Answer 4 questions, why are only 20% from Syria, the rest from Pakistan, Iran Eritea and sub Africa, 2. Why are 90% males between 21-35 years old 3. why do they risk their lives crossing the Med then trekking through 6 or 7 other countries to reach Germany, Sweden etc when they were safe in Turkey or other countries and 4. why isn't Saudi etc opening there doors to them, they are neigbouring countries of the same culture....Give qualified answers to these questions and maybe then some of us would have sympathy for them

I'll attempt a reasonable answer

1) The Syrian refugee crisis started early summer, the statistics started beginning of the year so numbers of people fleeing their own war torn countries has been counted for many more months than the Syrians.

The numbers are skewed.

2) Stay or be conscripted to fight in a dirty war. The men of conscription age don't want to fight. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they'll start jihad when they are the exact opposite, they don't want the fighting.

3) Would you rather be in a prosperous country or a poor one like Turkey. And Turkey has taken 2 million of them in. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they're going to where the welfare is good, but history has shown most immigrants soon join the workforce and contribute to society.

4) How could I possibly respond on behalf of Saudi Arabia, the most horrific humans rights abuser country on the planet?

I absolutely agree they should take refugees, but to suggest that I can give you a reason why they don't is ludicrous. Why would you look to me to explain and excuse Saudi's behaviour is a stretch.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/reality-check/2015/sep/19/daily-mail-syrian-refugees-story-three-problems

Oh,so draft dodgers seeking a better life wherever they want with no respect for countries visa regulations that makes it allright then does.it. ...the Syrian crisis has been going on a lot longer than a few months as you suggest so the figures are perfectly correct as stated by Amnesty and The Redcross

[duanebigsby]

So a country being overrun, the shit being bombed out of it, in total turmoil and only a fraction are "genuine refugees"?

They are only going to the countries for welfare handouts?

How narrow minded the anti refugee voices are.. There is a problem that was created by the US and Coalition involvement in the Middle East

which needs addressing. But to say people are just coming for welfare cheques is narrow minded.

Answer 4 questions, why are only 20% from Syria, the rest from Pakistan, Iran Eritea and sub Africa, 2. Why are 90% males between 21-35 years old 3. why do they risk their lives crossing the Med then trekking through 6 or 7 other countries to reach Germany, Sweden etc when they were safe in Turkey or other countries and 4. why isn't Saudi etc opening there doors to them, they are neigbouring countries of the same culture....Give qualified answers to these questions and maybe then some of us would have sympathy for them

I'll attempt a reasonable answer

1) The Syrian refugee crisis started early summer, the statistics started beginning of the year so numbers of people fleeing their own war torn countries has been counted for many more months than the Syrians.

The numbers are skewed.

2) Stay or be conscripted to fight in a dirty war. The men of conscription age don't want to fight. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they'll start jihad when they are the exact opposite, they don't want the fighting.

3) Would you rather be in a prosperous country or a poor one like Turkey. And Turkey has taken 2 million of them in. You are suggesting (like the Daily Mail) they're going to where the welfare is good, but history has shown most immigrants soon join the workforce and contribute to society.

4) How could I possibly respond on behalf of Saudi Arabia, the most horrific humans rights abuser country on the planet?

I absolutely agree they should take refugees, but to suggest that I can give you a reason why they don't is ludicrous. Why would you look to me to explain and excuse Saudi's behaviour is a stretch.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/reality-check/2015/sep/19/daily-mail-syrian-refugees-story-three-problems

Oh,so draft dodgers seeking a better life wherever they want with no respect for countries visa regulations that makes it allright then does.it. ...the Syrian crisis has been going on a lot longer than a few months as you suggest so the figures are perfectly correct as stated by Amnesty and The Redcross

I don't get where you are getting 20% from Syria. everytime I google I get vast majority from there.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

I perfectly understand someone fleeing their country as draft dodgers and find it acceptable.

Canada welcomed many Americans fleeing the Vietnam war flouting our visa rules. Claiming asylum trumps visa regulations every time someone is fearful for their life.

Also in my previous post I gave credible reference link to why the figure of 20% is wrong.

Edited November 6, 2015 by duanebigsby