SURVEY: Should your home country admit refugees?

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

I would expect to give the same,  and I would ask no more of visitors to my own country.

Refugees aren't visitors.

[ELVIS123456]

17 minutes ago, Sule9 said:

True. An actor was US President also

 

13 minutes ago, giddyup said:

The present one was an entertainer, or has everyone forgotten The Apprentice.

 

Touche lads - but I will point out something you have overlooked (or chosen to ignore).  Both Reagan and Trump have/had a far greater experience in life than just being an actor/entertainer.  Suggest you read their wikipedia entries - and then compare them both to people like DeNiro or Thompson wikipedia entries, and you will see that these liberal actors denouncing Trump have never been anything other than actors (and never will/could).

 

[NoshowJones]

The UK is full up, full stop.

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

 

 

Touche lads - but I will point out something you have overlooked (or chosen to ignore).  Both Reagan and Trump have/had a far greater experience in life than just being an actor/entertainer.  Suggest you read their wikipedia entries - and then compare them both to people like DeNiro or Thompson wikipedia entries, and you will see that these liberal actors denouncing Trump have never been anything other than actors (and never will/could).

 

Never said that either Reagan or Trump didn't have other qualities or skills, but I was responding to your comment about  entertainers not understanding anything about the real world.

[chiang mai]

11 minutes ago, giddyup said:

There is a big difference between integrating, learning the language etc when that country has offered you sanctuary and in a lot of cases supporting you and your family financially, than coming to Thailand as a guest only and supporting yourself. I appreciate that Thailand lets me remain here as a guest, but I owe the country nothing other than politeness and respect of it's laws and citizens.

You're missing the point which is purely hypothetical! IC makes the statement that refugees should only be allowed in if they are prepared to integrate, he doesn't say refugees from where nor into which country. My retort is to say "except most Brits" into Thailand, meaning that if Brits were to become refugees, based on their behaviour here to date they would be very unlikely to assimilate and integrate fully, there is therefore a double standard of what he requires of others versus the way he (and others) are willing to behave.

[ELVIS123456]

6 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Never said that either Reagan or Trump didn't have other qualities or skills, but I was responding to your comment about  entertainers not understanding anything about the real world.

Dont be so obtuse and pedantic  - you know who I was referring to - Thompson is 'only' an actor/entertainer.

 

[giddyup]

8 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Dont be so obtuse and pedantic  - you know who I was referring to - Thompson is 'only' an actor/entertainer.

 

"Actors and Entertainers" doesn't sound singular to me, but all-encompassing. No need to get touchy, we all get it wrong sometimes.

[riclag]

4 hours ago, connda said:

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

Blame nature for creating wars

[bkkgriz]

7 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Yes, most Brits in Thailand.

I didn't realize Brits in Thailand were refugees. Maybe refugees from the weather. Do Brits get welfare in Thailand? 

[Sule9]

Trump is over qualified for this job. Perhaps should be a fox hunter

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, bkkgriz said:

I didn't realize Brits in Thailand were refugees. Maybe refugees from the weather. Do Brits get welfare in Thailand? 

Or refugees from the refugees?

[chiang mai]

Just now, bkkgriz said:

I didn't realize Brits in Thailand were refugees. Maybe refugees from the weather. Do Brits get welfare in Thailand? 

If you aren't able to read and comprehend fully, please try reading post 65 which sets out the point in very simple terms!

[bkkgriz]

I voted yes. If the refugees are fully vetted, then come in and contribute to the country. I think most refugees given the chance will work hard to succeed in the US. I'll only speak for my country. I think a lot of the discussion going on now doesn't revolve around true refugees. Most are economic migrants who come to take advantage of social welfare. Once in their new country, they demand the country change to suit them and their values. I believe that is the biggest issue most people have with the migrants. 

[giddyup]

7 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

If you aren't able to read and comprehend fully, please try reading post 65 which sets out the point in very simple terms!

Well, Your first response of "yes, Brits in Thailand" was a bit ambiguous to say the least.

[bkkgriz]

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

If you aren't able to read and comprehend fully, please try reading post 65 which sets out the point in very simple terms!

No, I get your post. You are just trying to be a smart a**. Does every migrant to the US or UK learn English or the culture of their new country? If you say yes, you are being disingenous and just trying to be arugumentative. Are you proposing that refugees shouldn't bother integrating into society? They should just come to the US or the UK and live off the state at the taxpayers expense? I would think that if Brits or Americans were forced to move to a new country, where they could eventually get citizenship and work in said country they would integrate. But as it is, there is almost ZERO chance for a foreigner to become a Thai citizen and enjoy the rights of being a Thai citizen. Your hypothetical argument is nonsense.

[chiang mai]

8 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Well, Your first response of "yes, Brits in Thailand" was a bit ambiguous to say the least.

I disagree, the confusion started when posters jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to Brits in Thailand today, a connection that others made, not me.

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I disagree, the confusion started when posters jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to Brits in Thailand today, a connection that others made, not me.

OK, everyone else is wrong and your post was as clear as mud.

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, bkkgriz said:

No, I get your post. You are just trying to be a smart a**. Does every migrant to the US or UK learn English or the culture of their new country? If you say yes, you are being disingenous and just trying to be arugumentative. Are you proposing that refugees shouldn't bother integrating into society? They should just come to the US or the UK and live off the state at the taxpayers expense? I would think that if Brits or Americans were forced to move to a new country, where they could eventually get citizenship and work in said country they would integrate. But as it is, there is almost ZERO chance for a foreigner to become a Thai citizen and enjoy the rights of being a Thai citizen. Your hypothetical argument is nonsense.

Again, if you really don't get my point don't respond and from your comments you don't get it. I don't know what happens in other countries but in the UK immigrants are required to pass an an English exam, spoken and written - many are also required to pas a written exam covering life in the UK and its culture, an exam that most native Brits have difficulty passing.

 

And no, I don't suggest that refugees shouldn't bother integrating, I merely wrote that IC has double standards on the issue of integration, as set out previously.

 

Finally, the point I made has nothing to do with the US, nothing to do with foreigners gaining Thai citizenship, nothing to do with living off the state!!!

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, giddyup said:

OK, everyone else is wrong and your post was as clear as mud.

Two posters doesn't constitute  "everyone"!

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Two posters doesn't constitute  "everyone"!

Your counting skills aren't up to much either.

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Refugees aren't visitors.

 

I don't believe I said that they were................

[Aforek]

5 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

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.

 

Apart what we call Indians ( Sioux, Comanches etc ... ), we can say that 100 % of American people have foreign origins, not a " large minority or a majority " , idem for Australian, New Zeland ...

If I am wrong, what other origin than outside America ? USA is a country of immigrates ; first, all of them came from Europe, then from Africa  ( slaves ) and Asia and South America

the American race doesn't exist

[William Osborne]

I don't watch much current news because it just p====es me off but from what i can see is the Syrian refugees / civil war is being driven by US & Russia ?.... so they should sort out the mess ?.... 

Angela Merkel .... well , there are no words to describe her idiotic actions !!

 

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, Rob13 said:

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.

At the time Fidel was laughing his well you know what off. He off loaded a bunch of misfits that Cuba did not want or need. 

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, Sule9 said:

How did you obtain my class picture??? We all know what the pitcher was for don't we.

[elgordo38]

2 minutes ago, Sule9 said:

Even a few jerking in EU cost so much whereas here its just fleeee......

Quit jerking me around.

[steven100]

Absolutely no.

They are country shoppers, just looking for the best deal that will come their way.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

(USA) Yes, as long as their settlement is consistent with treaty obligations. Mostly refugees from Middle East should not however as they should be settled in the intermediates countries they pass through. Also the Arab, maybe Turkey such countries could be doing more whether or not they are signatories to UN refugee treaty. The culture of these peoples is not as well suited to the US and I think they would be much better off in UAE, Saudi, Lebanon, etc.

[Khon Kaen Dave]

chang mai

and where do you come from that you deserve the right to be here?

[lostlink]

Hell NO!