SURVEY: Should your home country admit refugees?

[Scott]

There has been a lot of discussion about refugees.   In your opinion, do you believe your home country should allow refugees who have been screened and vetted to be resettled.   Please be aware that for the purposes of the poll, these are people who have fled their home country and have been declared a refugee, not illegal immigrants or economic migrants.

[i claudius]

The only time they should be allowed in is if they are willing to completely integrate into the society ,live amongst any other race and never demand anything , we all know who this would exclude .

[chiang mai]

40 minutes ago, i claudius said:

The only time they should be allowed in is if they are willing to completely integrate into the society ,live amongst any other race and never demand anything , we all know who this would exclude .

Yes, most Brits in Thailand.

[Eff1n2ret]

12 hours ago, Scott said:

Please be aware that for the purposes of the poll, these are people who have fled their home country and have been declared a refugee, not illegal immigrants or economic migrants.

But that's where the problems start. In 20 years of dealing with self-declared "refugees", I rarely came across any genuine ones. The ideals of the 1951 Convention have been totally subverted by what is little more than a massive scam, and the well of human kindness has been poisoned by a constant stream of undeserving arrivals who found it very easy (in the case of the UK at least) to access social care and to resist all attempts to remove them when their claims were found to be bogus.

 

It's very easy to tick a box "liking" refugees. In practice the resources that could be devoted to helping families and young children in refugee camps in Turkey and Syria are gobbled up by feral young men who climb out of the backs of lorries in the south of England and tell a pack of lies about who they are and where they come from.

 

I decline to participate in this poll.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Eff1n2ret

[Scott]

54 minutes ago, Eff1n2ret said:

But that's where the problems start. In 20 years of dealing with self-declared "refugees", I rarely came across any genuine ones. The ideals of the 1951 Convention have been totally subverted by what is little more than a massive scam, and the well of human kindness has been poisoned by a constant stream of undeserving arrivals who found it very easy (in the case of the UK at least) to access social care and to resist all attempts to remove them when their claims were found to be bogus.

 

It's very easy to tick a box "liking" refugees. In practice the resources that could be devoted to helping families and young children in refugee camps in Turkey and Syria are gobbled up by feral young men who climb out of the backs of lorries in the south of England and tell a pack of lies about who they are and where they come from.

 

I decline to participate in this poll.

I have never heard of 'self-declared refugees', but I have heard of those who have been screened and determined to be refugees.   Countries sometimes set their own criteria for what they will admit.  

[Sule9]

When you rent a condo, you see several countries flags I mean the actual owner wants you to know that so 100% integration is out of normal senses. Yes they must not isolate themselves like many do or may forced to do.
Yes war torn refugees must be allowed and taken care.

[Sule9]

The worst thing was done last year early when EU made a deal with Turkey for sending back migrants for some conditions later the same EU ally supprted the failed coup. Now practically begging Turkey to help. PM May is first one to start paying for it. EU should now start to decide on their own rather then US dependency.

[Eff1n2ret]

42 minutes ago, Scott said:

I have never heard of 'self-declared refugees', but I have heard of those who have been screened and determined to be refugees.   Countries sometimes set their own criteria for what they will admit.  

'self-declared refugees' - would be those who are referred to as refugees by themselves as well as fuzzy-minded media and lefties even though they are only seeking asylum or have already been refused (or in may cases have not formally claimed asylum, they're just illegals). The second option in your poll postulates an ideal situation where countries take in a quota of those whose identities are not in doubt and have already been declared to be refugees who pose no threat to the proposed host country. But you can't in honesty pose that ideal without also asking 'How many'?

 

The UK has an estimated 1 million illegal entrants, overstayers and failed asylum seekers milling round the country, a situation which has been allowed to happen by a combination of incompetence by the Home Office, blatant exploitation by a rapacious Human Rights Industry and a general woolly-minded attitude towards the "refugee" and illegals problem.

 

I merely say that until the country, any country, puts itself in the position of being able to grant residence to those whom it chooses and remove any and all who are not entitled to be there, the welcome to genuine refugees will always be grudging and inadequate. And, incidentally, anyone who believes that Brexit (of which I am in favour) will really give the UK "control of its borders" doesn't really understand what that will take.

[Sule9]

'self-declared refugees' - would be those who are referred to as refugees by themselves as well as fuzzy-minded media and lefties even though they are only seeking asylum or have already been refused (or in may cases have not formally claimed asylum, they're just illegals). The second option in your poll postulates an ideal situation where countries take in a quota of those whose identities are not in doubt and have already been declared to be refugees who pose no threat to the proposed host country. But you can't in honesty pose that ideal without also asking 'How many'?
 
The UK has an estimated 1 million illegal entrants, overstayers and failed asylum seekers milling round the country, a situation which has been allowed to happen by a combination of incompetence by the Home Office, blatant exploitation by a rapacious Human Rights Industry and a general woolly-minded attitude towards the "refugee" and illegals problem.
 
I merely say that until the country, any country, puts itself in the position of being able to grant residence to those whom it chooses and remove any and all who are not entitled to be there, the welcome to genuine refugees will always be grudging and inadequate. And, incidentally, anyone who believes that Brexit (of which I am in favour) will really give the UK "control of its borders" doesn't really understand what that will take.

Perfect. UK wants to continue economic benefits even after the exit. You will not be able to see English choclates in the supermarkets in Budapest the same way you will not see a Hungarian or Polish in service industry in UK. So there is always a cost for gaining something.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Yes, most Brits in Thailand.

 

Whereas all the Aussies, Yanks, French, German, Japs, Koreans, Chinese, Indians and Africans all integrate perfectly and simply blend in without ever complaining about anything.

[Rob13]

If they give them the needed support then it's Ok, after they're properly vetted..I still remember the Cubans in Miami back in the 80's . What a mess that was.

Just allowing them in the country with no support or anything only creates problems for the refugees and the country.

[Baerboxer]

Genuine refugees are fleeing some form of persecution or danger. They have to accept protection from the first safe country they arrive at. Those people may chose to stay in their new county and if so should assimilate and integrate and make an effort to do so.

 

Illegal economic migrants are not refugees. They are trying to avoid legal immigration and to cherry pick the country they want to go to where they expect they will be given the most free. This idea they can illegally enter and cross many countries and then have an entitlement to simply plant themselves on a country of their choosing which must accept and provide for them, whilst they make no effort at integrating is very different to a refugee.

 

Countries have their own criteria and rules to help genuine refugees. The others are simply illegal immigrants and should be treated as such.

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

If they give them the needed support then it's Ok, after they're properly vetted..I still remember the Cubans in Miami back in the 80's . What a mess that was.

Just allowing them in the country with no support or anything only creates problems for the refugees and the country.

 

Were those Cubans really refugees or were they economic migrants hoping to by-pass immigration laws and enter the US?

[connda]

1 hour ago, Sule9 said:

When you rent a condo, you see several countries flags I mean the actual owner wants you to know that so 100% integration is out of normal senses. Yes they must not isolate themselves like many do or may forced to do.
Yes war torn refugees must be allowed and taken care.

Food for thought: Who creates the wars which creates the refugees?

[Sule9]

Food for thought: Who creates the wars which creates the refugees?

All the key financial players in North America, Europe & the Middle East

[realenglish1]

Refugees should be admitted to the USA only after they have been vetted properly and not before

 

[giddyup]

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Were those Cubans really refugees or were they economic migrants hoping to by-pass immigration laws and enter the US?

Didn't Castro open his jails so all the criminals could migrate to Miami?

[IMA_FARANG]

In the U.S  a large minority if not a majority of families can trace there origins back to another country.

My family is from England on the mothers side and French-Canadian on my fathers side.

If you know your history most of the native born Americans are from immigrant roots.

we as Americans  hate to admit it but our country was built by foreigners since the 1500's.

I know that is not popular now but it is in fact the truth.

Now that our society has  become fat, stupid, and lazy we want to forget the fact that we are all immigrants from somewhere.

Fear is what breeds irrationality, and now Americans are afraid.

that is why we have Trump as president, irrational fear.

That is my opinion, whether you like it or not.

 

[elgordo38]

2 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Yes, most Brits in Thailand.

You are being vetted in Thailand to the tune of 800,000 bahts in the bank. No riff raff please. 

[elgordo38]

2 minutes ago, IMA_FARANG said:

Now that our society has  become fat, stupid, and lazy we want to forget the fact that we are all immigrants from somewhere.

You say fat, stupid and lazy well the immigrants being brought in should really fit in. Germany is a good example. Don't go out after dark. 

[Rob13]

20 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Were those Cubans really refugees or were they economic migrants hoping to by-pass immigration laws and enter the US?

IDK, it's a  question of semantics really.  IMO, they were more like exiled convicts turned refugee. 

 

The problem was the US allowed them in as 'refugees' and had no real follow up plan.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Rob13

[Sule9]

Refugees should be admitted to the USA only after they have been vetted properly and not before
 

Criteria: They must not pray & change their surname?
Does Thai authorities know that so many people who get the temperoray stay turn out to be crimnals. Even to a murderer before execution; they are fed and given chance to pray to their faith.

[Sule9]

[ELVIS123456]

3 hours ago, i claudius said:

The only time they should be allowed in is if they are willing to completely integrate into the society ,live amongst any other race and never demand anything , we all know who this would exclude .

Well said sir !!  This is the heart of the issue. 

 

As one of millions of children who migrated after WW2 I know exactly what it means to go to another country to live.  Whilst there was some 'settling in' period, and later for the other groups of migrants who came from other countries, the inevitable result was peaceful integration. This has NOT been the case for one particular group who started arriving in numbers since the late 90s. The more that come from this group, the more the problems increased.  Whilst many people  of some groups integrated less than others (eg. china town), they still peacefully adopted and did not threaten or demand changes to our culture (live and let live). 

 

History shows that the Muslim culture has never (not once) peacefully integrated into another culture/civilisation. The reality is that they incompatible with western societies - period. Their culture is one based on the overthrow and domination of all other cultures. 

 

There is only one outcome in my opinion. Either the muslim 'church' will be reformed from within, as was the Christian 'church' in 15/16 centuries, or they will be driven out - as was previously done in most of southern Europe. Actually, there is another - they will win and in 200 years our people and culture will become Muslim.

[Sule9]

The only difference between the existing migrants above is very clear.

[Crossy]

Can we change option two to "Screened and vetted PROPERLY"?

 

There are many reports of the UK admitting "children" who later turn out to be in their 20s

 

[Sule9]

Well said sir !!  This is the heart of the issue. 
 
As one of millions of children who migrated after WW2 I know exactly what it means to go to another country to live.  Whilst there was some 'settling in' period, and later for the other groups of migrants who came from other countries, the inevitable result was peaceful integration. This has NOT been the case for one particular group who started arriving in numbers since the late 90s. The more that come from this group, the more the problems increased.  Whilst many people  of some groups integrated less than others (eg. china town), they still peacefully adopted and did not threaten or demand changes to our culture (live and let live). 
 
History shows that the Muslim culture has never (not once) peacefully integrated into another culture/civilisation. The reality is that they incompatible with western societies - period. Their culture is one based on the overthrow and domination of all other cultures. 
 
There is only one outcome in my opinion. Either the muslim 'church' will be reformed from within, as was the Christian 'church' in 15/16 centuries, or they will be driven out - as was previously done in most of southern Europe. Actually, there is another - they will win and in 200 years our people and culture will become Muslim.

With due respect, you must read history properly again and again.

[Sule9]

[CharlieK]

1 hour ago, Sule9 said:

Perfect. UK wants to continue economic benefits even after the exit. You will not be able to see English choclates in the supermarkets in Budapest the same way you will not see a Hungarian or Polish in service industry in UK. So there is always a cost for gaining something.

 

who would want to see rubbish English chocolates in Budapest. The English don't know what real chocolate tastes like!  Yes there are Hungarians and poles in the service industry  in the UK.  You really don't know what you are talking about!

[Gary A]

I still remember that a famous democrat president named Jimmy Carter was scammed and outsmarted by Castro. Castro emptied his prisons and mental hospitals, put them on boats and shipped them to Florida. Be careful what you ask for.