Children still stranded after Calais camp bulldozed

[DM07]

18 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Unlike your argument of making every country responsible for the whole refugee problem in the world, which is different of course, but only in your mind.

 

BTW how many refugees do you have living with you or that you support?

Since I am living in Thailand: none!

But if I would live back in my home -country, you could be sure, that I would support the refugees with more then only nice words!

 

What are you doing, to make the world better?

By the way: almost every country IS responsible for the refugee problems in the world- by definition!

[bangon04]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Since I am living in Thailand: none!

But if I would live back in my home -country, you could be sure, that I would support the refugees with more then only nice words!

You chose to live in Thailand....  we can only speculate why you chose to leave (run away from) your "home" country. For many members here  it is related to the failures in social management such as immigration. "Home" Countries increasingly fail their own citizens while striving to uphold the rights and benefits of migrants.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, DM07 said:

Since I am living in Thailand: none!

But if I would live back in my home -country, you could be sure, that I would support the refugees with more then only nice words!

 

What are you doing, to make the world better?

By the way: almost every country IS responsible for the refugee problems in the world- by definition!

 

Well in my last career before I retired I helped put new and expanded existing mobile systems into about 20 countries in 15 years, including AIS, DTAC and Hutch in Thailand so that people could actually talk to each other.

 

How about you?

[DM07]

17 hours ago, bangon04 said:

You chose to live in Thailand....  we can only speculate why you chose to leave (run away from) your "home" country. For many members here  it is related to the failures in social management such as immigration. "Home" Countries increasingly fail their own citizens while striving to uphold the rights and benefits of migrants.

You can only speculate ...and you are wrong!

I left my country, because at the age of 40 it was basically the last chance to work abroad, experience a new culture.

My homecountry didn't fail me- not in any way! 

And sure not by taking in refugees eg people who are in need of help!

I was very lucky to have lived there and experienced a good upbringing, education or healthcar and mots of all: PEACE!

Is my homecountry exempt from criticizm?

No way!

Taking in refugees, is not one of them!

[DM07]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Well in my last career before I retired I helped put new and expanded existing mobile systems into about 20 countries in 15 years, including AIS, DTAC and Hutch in Thailand so that people could actually talk to each other.

 

How about you?

Hahahaha...seriously!

You are like Donald Trump!

"I made tremendous sacrifices! I made millions of dollars!"

Well...I made people have new experience, widening their horizons and at the same time took tremendous care of their health, in giving them relaxing times AS A TRAVEL AGENT!

 

Dude...seriously...

[billd766]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Hahahaha...seriously!

You are like Donald Trump!

"I made tremendous sacrifices! I made millions of dollars!"

Well...I made people have new experience, widening their horizons and at the same time took tremendous care of their health, in giving them relaxing times AS A TRAVEL AGENT!

 

Dude...seriously...

 

So you have no answer.

 

No I didn't make any sacrifices other than getting a divorce and losing my family but that was my personal choice.

 

No I didnt make millions of dollars. I just did my job as did most of my colleagues in the trade.

 

If you wish to wear your heart on your sleeve, a chip on your shoulder and carry a cross on your back then please do so. That is your choice but it certainly isn't mine.

 

If you have a problem with countries not wanting refugees please take it up with those governments and the leaders that caused the problem in the first place. I am sure that they will listen to you and take your words to heart and mend their ways.

 

If you want refugees to come into the UK YOU look after them but dont expect the average taxpayer to foot the bill for you.

 

Do you remember taxpayers? They are the ones that foot the bills for the government. They are the ones that have to wait longer for a doctors or hospital appointment, the ones that cannot get their children into the schools that they pay for, the ones that cannot earn enough money to even get onto the first rung of the housing ladder let alone own their own home.

 

Yet you want to let "refugees" into the country, to be treated exactly the same as local people and in many cases get more benefits than local people whilst the "refugees" have no connection or affiliation with the UK at all and believe that they have a right to do so.

 

That is your choice. Mine is diametrically the opposite.

 

When all of the UK citizens are in work, houses, when they get medical treatment that a first world country is expected to have, when their children get a good education then perhaps the country should take in refugees.

 

Why are most of the refugees young and fit men who could be fighting to get their own country back yet scuttle off to live the good life elsewhere?

[DM07]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

So you have no answer.

 

No I didn't make any sacrifices other than getting a divorce and losing my family but that was my personal choice.

 

No I didnt make millions of dollars. I just did my job as did most of my colleagues in the trade.

 

If you wish to wear your heart on your sleeve, a chip on your shoulder and carry a cross on your back then please do so. That is your choice but it certainly isn't mine.

 

If you have a problem with countries not wanting refugees please take it up with those governments and the leaders that caused the problem in the first place. I am sure that they will listen to you and take your words to heart and mend their ways.

 

If you want refugees to come into the UK YOU look after them but dont expect the average taxpayer to foot the bill for you.

 

Do you remember taxpayers? They are the ones that foot the bills for the government. They are the ones that have to wait longer for a doctors or hospital appointment, the ones that cannot get their children into the schools that they pay for, the ones that cannot earn enough money to even get onto the first rung of the housing ladder let alone own their own home.

 

Yet you want to let "refugees" into the country, to be treated exactly the same as local people and in many cases get more benefits than local people whilst the "refugees" have no connection or affiliation with the UK at all and believe that they have a right to do so.

 

That is your choice. Mine is diametrically the opposite.

 

When all of the UK citizens are in work, houses, when they get medical treatment that a first world country is expected to have, when their children get a good education then perhaps the country should take in refugees.

 

Why are most of the refugees young and fit men who could be fighting to get their own country back yet scuttle off to live the good life elsewhere?

I am just taking one part of your enormous heap of the usual BS: 

"Yet you want to let "refugees" into the country, to be treated exactly the same as local people and in many cases get more benefits than local people whilst the "refugees" have no connection or affiliation with the UK at all and believe that they have a right to do so."

 

Well...if you mean, they are forced to live in "camps" and are not allowed to work, have basically all of their rights taken away and life under the fear of daily being sent to the next place...and the next...and the next.....yeah...exactly like the usual tax-payer, right!?

 

By the way: where I come from we did exactly, what you said (give free stuff to people who had no connection -basically- the the country...): it was called REUNIFICATION, when we basically gave stuff to 20 million East- Germans, who had social security, health care, pensions FROM DAY ONE ,without ever contributing to the system in West- Germany!

No one was as upset about that and these people were not coming from war- torn parts of the world, but had houses and jobs (before the West German government took them away, by letting companies just roll all the money out of the part of the country)!

 

So let's just agree on the following: in your wold view, refugees and their ilk are basically responsible for all the bad that happened or will happen in the UK and I think, you are full of...well...it!

 

 

[SgtRock]

26 minutes ago, DM07 said:

By the way: where I come from we did exactly, what you said (give free stuff to people who had no connection -basically- the the country...): it was called REUNIFICATION, when we basically gave stuff to 20 million East- Germans, who had social security, health care, pensions FROM DAY ONE ,without ever contributing to the system in West- Germany!

 

WOW

 

Now we have an attempt at trying to compare the Country formerly known as East Germany with the refugee crisis.

 

Amazing

[billd766]

35 minutes ago, DM07 said:

I am just taking one part of your enormous heap of the usual BS: 

"Yet you want to let "refugees" into the country, to be treated exactly the same as local people and in many cases get more benefits than local people whilst the "refugees" have no connection or affiliation with the UK at all and believe that they have a right to do so."

 

Well...if you mean, they are forced to live in "camps" and are not allowed to work, have basically all of their rights taken away and life under the fear of daily being sent to the next place...and the next...and the next.....yeah...exactly like the usual tax-payer, right!?

 

By the way: where I come from we did exactly, what you said (give free stuff to people who had no connection -basically- the the country...): it was called REUNIFICATION, when we basically gave stuff to 20 million East- Germans, who had social security, health care, pensions FROM DAY ONE ,without ever contributing to the system in West- Germany!

No one was as upset about that and these people were not coming from war- torn parts of the world, but had houses and jobs (before the West German government took them away, by letting companies just roll all the money out of the part of the country)!

 

So let's just agree on the following: in your wold view, refugees and their ilk are basically responsible for all the bad that happened or will happen in the UK and I think, you are full of...well...it!

 

 

 

Still no real answers and as usual insulting me once again. I cant be bothered to come down to your level.

 

You gave free stuff to people from your own country who were not refugees but German citizens anyway and it cost Germany a vast amount of money, facilities etc to do so. That was the choice of your country and your politicians at that time.

 

You may not have noticed but the citizens of East Germany were still German citizens who were trapped behind a wall that was not of their making. Prior to 1945 they WERE German citizens and when they wall came down they were still German citizens and NOT refugees at all.

 

Your countries leader casually invited a million or more "refugees" who have no connection with Germany, the EU or the UK to come over and be welcome without consulting ANY other country in the EU and now expects every country in the EU to accept a quota of them and pay for that from their own countries funds. Not only that but she actually seems to believe what she says. How sad for your country that they have a leader like that.

 

You have your view and I have mine. They are diametrically opposite.

 

If you want to do something about the "refugees", then please do so, but with your own time, money and resources.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by billd766
Added extra text

[DM07]

50 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

WOW

 

Now we have an attempt at trying to compare the Country formerly known as East Germany with the refugee crisis.

 

Amazing

So care to explain, why "we " should not do this?

20 Million were just fed into the system, who had previously not contributetd to the system.

And that was okay!

1 million refugees and we are totally loosing our sh1t!

Makes total sense!

[DM07]

47 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Still no real answers and as usual insulting me once again. I cant be bothered to come down to your level.

 

You gave free stuff to people from your own country who were not refugees but German citizens anyway and it cost Germany a vast amount of money, facilities etc to do so. That was the choice of your country and your politicians at that time.

 

You may not have noticed but the citizens of East Germany were still German citizens who were trapped behind a wall that was not of their making. Prior to 1945 they WERE German citizens and when they wall came down they were still German citizens and NOT refugees at all.

 

Your countries leader casually invited a million or more "refugees" who have no connection with Germany, the EU or the UK to come over and be welcome without consulting ANY other country in the EU and now expects every country in the EU to accept a quota of them and pay for that from their own countries funds. Not only that but she actually seems to believe what she says. How sad for your country that they have a leader like that.

 

You have your view and I have mine. They are diametrically opposite.

 

If you want to do something about the "refugees", then please do so, but with your own time, money and resources.

 

Don't lecture me on German history, please!

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

I am just taking one part of your enormous heap of the usual BS: 

"Yet you want to let "refugees" into the country, to be treated exactly the same as local people and in many cases get more benefits than local people whilst the "refugees" have no connection or affiliation with the UK at all and believe that they have a right to do so."

 

Well...if you mean, they are forced to live in "camps" and are not allowed to work, have basically all of their rights taken away and life under the fear of daily being sent to the next place...and the next...and the next.....yeah...exactly like the usual tax-payer, right!?

 

By the way: where I come from we did exactly, what you said (give free stuff to people who had no connection -basically- the the country...): it was called REUNIFICATION, when we basically gave stuff to 20 million East- Germans, who had social security, health care, pensions FROM DAY ONE ,without ever contributing to the system in West- Germany!

No one was as upset about that and these people were not coming from war- torn parts of the world, but had houses and jobs (before the West German government took them away, by letting companies just roll all the money out of the part of the country)!

 

So let's just agree on the following: in your wold view, refugees and their ilk are basically responsible for all the bad that happened or will happen in the UK and I think, you are full of...well...it!

 

 

 

"Well...if you mean, they are forced to live in "camps" and are not allowed to work, have basically all of their rights taken away and life under the fear of daily being sent to the next place...and the next...and the next.....yeah...exactly like the usual tax-payer, right!?"

 

The choice to come to Europe, legally or otherwise, was their own. With regard to the migrants in Calais, they were not exactly forced to live on a camp, certainly not all of them. And no, arriving at a country, legally or otherwise, does not automatically infer special rights.  

[SgtRock]

38 minutes ago, DM07 said:

So care to explain, why "we " should not do this?

20 Million were just fed into the system, who had previously not contributetd to the system.

And that was okay!

1 million refugees and we are totally loosing our sh1t!

Makes total sense!

 

Apparently there would be absolutely no point

 

38 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Don't lecture me on German history, please!

 

 

Someone who tries to compare the reunification East and West Germany to the invasion of migrants is not worthy of a lecture or further explanation.

[DM07]

28 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

Apparently there would be absolutely no point

 

 

Someone who tries to compare the reunification East and West Germany to the invasion of migrants is not worthy of a lecture or further explanation.

"Invasion"...aha...

[billd766]

6 hours ago, DM07 said:

Don't lecture me on German history, please!

 

 

It is not a lecture, it is a fact of life.

 

Were the East Germans refugees, and if the were who were they refugees from? Where was they war that they were running from. Where was the slaughter of people? The majority never even left East Germany. The may well have been economically challenged but none of them starved, they had peace, jobs, housing, cars etc.

 

East Germany was reunited with West Germany, At the reunification East Germany was a functional country though a long way behind West Germany so they brought an entire working country with them.

 

What do the refugees bring with them?

Edited November 4, 2016 by billd766
Added more text

[DM07]

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

It is not a lecture, it is a fact of life.

 

Were the East Germans refugees, and if the were who were they refugees from? Where was they war that they were running from. Where was the slaughter of people? The majority never even left East Germany. The may well have been economically challenged but none of them starved, they had peace, jobs, housing, cars etc.

 

East Germany was reunited with West Germany, At the reunification East Germany was a functional country though a long way behind West Germany so they brought an entire working country with them.

 

What do the refugees bring with them?

Right! They were in absolutely no need, but got fed into the system, without ever contributing anything!

 

Refugees have a REASON for running from where they are now, they are not 20 million, but merely one million.

In the long run the could and would contribute to the system and help to "refresh" Germanys aging population.

That would be a win/win -situation and it would cost less than it costed than!

 

I know very well, that -politically- East- Germans were "Germans"!

If you look at the reality, they were not more "German" than Danish-people or Brits!

I am not talking about that anyway!

I am refuting the financial- argument!

Renunification was way more costly, than the "peanuts", Germany would pay for a million refugees!

But because back then it was "our" people (mostly the ones who are now protesting the most and the most violent!), it was no burden at all!

Whereas NOW, the money we would have to invest, will make the whole nation go bancrupt within a week, with the overdemanding refugees (who we don't even let contribute, by putting them to work, faster), who cost us brazillions of Euros and just leech of the governments tit!

Ridiculous!

[SgtRock]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Refugees have a REASON for running from where they are now, they are not 20 million, but merely one million.

 

Here is some of your 1 Million migrants. Be grateful it is not 20 Million or the Western part of Europe would be burning.

 

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/small-town-mayors-in-revolt-as-paris-kicks-migrants-out-of-city-70vq80txw

 

It must be great to live in your bubble, where you could not care less about the euro Billions annually that it costs to have them. To say nothing of the untold euro Billions they cause in criminality and other nefarious activities

 

This is the reason the GENUINE refugees are now becoming more and more unwelcome.

[NongKhaiKid]

Earlier this morning I saw an interview with the Roman Catholic Cardinal who heads that church in England and Wales and needless to say he was bemoaning the anti-immigrant feeling etc.

Easy to give it the brotherly love etc propaganda when your own personal circumstances are never likely to be affected in any way no matter how many unwelcome arrivals are allowed in.

Edited November 5, 2016 by NongKhaiKid

[billd766]

2 hours ago, DM07 said:

Right! They were in absolutely no need, but got fed into the system, without ever contributing anything!

 

Refugees have a REASON for running from where they are now, they are not 20 million, but merely one million.

In the long run the could and would contribute to the system and help to "refresh" Germanys aging population.

That would be a win/win -situation and it would cost less than it costed than!

 

I know very well, that -politically- East- Germans were "Germans"!

If you look at the reality, they were not more "German" than Danish-people or Brits!

I am not talking about that anyway!

I am refuting the financial- argument!

Renunification was way more costly, than the "peanuts", Germany would pay for a million refugees!

But because back then it was "our" people (mostly the ones who are now protesting the most and the most violent!), it was no burden at all!

Whereas NOW, the money we would have to invest, will make the whole nation go bancrupt within a week, with the overdemanding refugees (who we don't even let contribute, by putting them to work, faster), who cost us brazillions of Euros and just leech of the governments tit!

Ridiculous!

 

Sadly and wrongly for you there are NOT just "one million refugees". There are far more and thousands more keep coming day after day, week after week, month after month. Just to feed and house the refugees in the camps already established in the EU costs tens of millions of Euros a day. Where will the money come from? From the countries that the "refugees" left? Not a chance. It will come from the EU where from the 28 countries currently there are only 5 countries who are net payers in. The other 23 countries also live off the EU as net NON contributors so who will foot the bill for it all?

 

What I cant seem to make you understand is that there is a limit to how many "refugees" that can be helped, and even that will be at the expense of the people whose countries the "refugees" are trying to reach. Why do so many "refugees" want to go to the UK? Because they have been told that the benefits are better there.

 

The EU and the UK are NOT the lands of milk and honey and now the people of the UK and the EU are saying enough is enough. We want OUR countries for ourselves. They have had enough but the politicians are not listening to their own people.

 

Why are many countries in the EU putting up barriers to keep the "refugees" out? Because they dont want them, cannot afford them and mostly because they are "refugeed" out.

 

Why, with the main exception of Jordan, who are doing a tremendous job with refugees, are no Moslem or Arab countries taking in "refugees"? Because THEY dont want them either. Why dont the "refugees" want to go to those countries? Because they will only get minimal, if any benefits.

[rockingrobin]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/

[DM07]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Sadly and wrongly for you there are NOT just "one million refugees". There are far more and thousands more keep coming day after day, week after week, month after month. Just to feed and house the refugees in the camps already established in the EU costs tens of millions of Euros a day. Where will the money come from? From the countries that the "refugees" left? Not a chance. It will come from the EU where from the 28 countries currently there are only 5 countries who are net payers in. The other 23 countries also live off the EU as net NON contributors so who will foot the bill for it all?

 

What I cant seem to make you understand is that there is a limit to how many "refugees" that can be helped, and even that will be at the expense of the people whose countries the "refugees" are trying to reach. Why do so many "refugees" want to go to the UK? Because they have been told that the benefits are better there.

 

The EU and the UK are NOT the lands of milk and honey and now the people of the UK and the EU are saying enough is enough. We want OUR countries for ourselves. They have had enough but the politicians are not listening to their own people.

 

Why are many countries in the EU putting up barriers to keep the "refugees" out? Because they dont want them, cannot afford them and mostly because they are "refugeed" out.

 

Why, with the main exception of Jordan, who are doing a tremendous job with refugees, are no Moslem or Arab countries taking in "refugees"? Because THEY dont want them either. Why dont the "refugees" want to go to those countries? Because they will only get minimal, if any benefits.

"We want OUR countries for ourselves."

If "we" want that, we should make this a two way road, shall we?

Good luck growing cocao, coffee, bananas or mangos in Cornwall, good luck, drilling for oil in Croydon and good luck with the rubber-plantations in Southhampton!

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, DM07 said:

"We want OUR countries for ourselves."

If "we" want that, we should make this a two way road, shall we?

Good luck growing cocao, coffee, bananas or mangos in Cornwall, good luck, drilling for oil in Croydon and good luck with the rubber-plantations in Southhampton!

No , they just want to benefit from child exploitation

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/child-labour-sweatshops-refugees-marks-and-spencer-panorama-clothes-sold-in-uk-britain-british-high-a7376706.html

[billd766]

53 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/

 

Thank you for posting that link. It is nice to see that some posters can do some research and come up with facts and links.

 

It is pretty much up to date (to the end of August 2016) and a very interesting read.

 

I certainly learned a fair amount from it.

 

 

 

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Thank you for posting that link. It is nice to see that some posters can do some research and come up with facts and links.

 

It is pretty much up to date (to the end of August 2016) and a very interesting read.

 

I certainly learned a fair amount from it.

 

 

If this is so then perhaps you may wish to update your understanding of how many asylum seekers / refugees are hosted in Muslim countries other than Jordan e.g.

 

Turkey 2million+

Lebanon 1million+

Iran 700k+

Pakistan 1.5million+

Iraq 300k+ (Iraq has a huge problem with millions of IDPs, as does Syria)

 

KSA & some Gulf States do host refugees (estimates vary) are not incorporated in host country reports from UNHCR - an example...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/gulf-states-are-taking-syrian-refugees-401131

Edited November 5, 2016 by simple1

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/

 

Very interesting

 

Should be compulsory reading particularly for some of the "nasties"

[ddavidovsky]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Very interesting

 

Should be compulsory reading particularly for some of the "nasties"

 

One last time: try and understand the difference between genuine asylum seekers who are seeking temporary refuge from war-torn countries and economic migrants who are just looking for a better life.

 

This thread is particularly about the group in Calais, who, given that they have travelled across Europe specifically to get to the UK, are ipso facto economic migrants.

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

One last time: try and understand the difference between genuine asylum seekers who are seeking temporary refuge from war-torn countries and economic migrants who are just looking for a better life.

 

This thread is particularly about the group in Calais, who, given that they have travelled across Europe specifically to get to the UK, are ipso facto economic migrants.

 

Yes, I understand. But let's just show a little humanity, some generosity of spirit!

[simple1]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

One last time: try and understand the difference between genuine asylum seekers who are seeking temporary refuge from war-torn countries and economic migrants who are just looking for a better life.

 

This thread is particularly about the group in Calais, who, given that they have travelled across Europe specifically to get to the UK, are ipso facto economic migrants.

 

Incorrect - understand the Dubs Agreement under which many of the children are being permitted entry to the UK. Also the Dublin Treaty conditions were waived by a number of EU countries which enabled the children to reach France and other countries. The downside, at least for the children, is exposure to criminal gangs with reportedly many ending up in prostitution, criminally organised street gangs, exploited labour and so on. Early this year is was estimated by EU security approx 10,000 children have "disappeared", don't recall any concerns posted by certain members of this forum other than insistent vilification of those legally defined as children.

 

Currently it is estimated approx 40% of all asylum seekers reaching EU countries are assessed as genuine refugees.

[Laughing Gravy]

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

KSA & some Gulf States do host refugees (estimates vary) are not incorporated in host country reports from UNHCR - an example...

That's because they treat them worse than digs. I know from first hand experience. That's Muslims treating other Muslims.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Currently it is estimated approx 40% of all asylum seekers reaching EU countries are assessed as genuine refugees.

Well with them figures it is hardly surprising the EU and especially the UK are wary and should be with the fact that they are being conned.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/729081/Migrants-have-been-lying-about-their-age-for-benefits-for-YEARS

They have been playing on our good nature and pulling our heart strings Sadly the lefties and luvvies buy into it and believe it. Just wait as you will see in the next few years. an explosion of these migrants breaking laws and causing problems.

 

The MET have already got stats out . Nearly half of squatters are Romanian. Police get called to incidents and a third are caused by immigrants. This is the reality and what is coming to the town and cities of the UK.