Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

A person with a chronic personality disorder may be against immigration in some cases. That person could also be a conservative, communist or liberal but that does not mean these political movements arise out of paranoia. Most people in the UK including immigrants who settled here are against mass immigration. The UK feels it is too full and cant look after its own. Most support asylum but not mass economic migration. Some migration is okay in the view of many or most in the UK.

I don't believe you are the spokesman for "most people".

But Britain and it's support of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people is a major reason these refugees exist.

You keep playing the same old song. I'm sure the disc is worn out by now. For the last time, these people are victims of the Sunni & Shia war that's been raging since the paedophile founded this death cult!

 

[untermensche]

I don't believe you are the spokesman for "most people".

But Britain and it's support of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people is a major reason these refugees exist.

You keep playing the same old song. I'm sure the disc is worn out by now. For the last time, these people are victims of the Sunni & Shia war that's been raging since the paedophile founded this death cult!

Truth does not change no matter how loudly you whine.

 

[jonatha]

For the last time, these people are victims of the Sunni & Shia war that's been raging since the paedophile founded this death cult!

The Sunni/Shia split didn't occur until Mohammed's death.

 

[faded_Glory]

You've got to be kidding!! Where the f...k are they heading for if not to the welfare states of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy, often passing through countries with little or no welfare payments.

They go the NW European countries because they have exaggerated and essentially incorrect notions about immigrant welfare entitlements. There are many myths propagated by the opponents of immigration, and one of the biggest is that anyone who enters, say, the UK, is immediately entitled to all kind of handouts.

This is simply untrue, and a casual Google search will easily inform about the real situation. Hint: welfare entitlement depends crucially on the status of the immigrant. Immigrants from non-EEA states (who are the people being discussed in this thread) who are subject to immigration control (and most will be) are not normally entitled to means-tested benefits such as income support or housing benefit.

fG

 

[arkirk]

For something to be sectarian violence it has to be carried out for religious reasons.

Hussein was not religious and did nothing for religious reasons.

No you don't. You just need to treat people unfairly and make sure you sit on the money. And reward people for how much they kiss your ass. They just need to belong to identifiable groups. Could be anything really. Even just arbitrary shit. Saddam was notoriously erratic. You can easily manipulate people into sectarian violence this way, which he did.

There's a famous film when he takes power. He forces one half of the parliamentarians shoot the other half. Just random terror to keep them on their toes. The guy was a complete fucking psycho maniac.

I remember well his purge of their parliamentarians. I agree with BOTH OF YOU. Unfortunately, Dr. Zoidberg has chosen to condemn the LESSER of two evils in Iraq, leaving the #1 all time killer and torturer in Iraq free to enjoy his Crawford Texas ranch:

There is no question that Saddam was a bad man, but Untermensche is right about him. He is not the cause of the current violence in Iraq. The real problem with America...no understanding in our leadership of how to use soft power...for something good in an international sense. Instead, our current Prez is on the same course as our last one. That is unfortunate.

 

[bilby]

I'm damn sure that not all illegal migrants bypass countries that have little or no welfare system. And I would be most interested to see your evidence that most do so.

Is your rhetorical question based in reality at all, or is the premise of your question yet another 'truthy' idea that you have invented because it is required by your preconceived conclusion?

You've got to be kidding!! Where the f...k are they heading for if not to the welfare states of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy, often passing through countries with little or no welfare payments.

So no evidence then.

I thought not.

 

[arkirk]

You've got to be kidding!! Where the f...k are they heading for if not to the welfare states of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy, often passing through countries with little or no welfare payments.

So no evidence then.

I thought not.

They obviously are leaving a state where there is nothing for them. Why should they stop in another country that has NOTHING FOR THEM? Use your head man. Evidence is not necessary here. The fact is there is a large camp in Calais full or refugees that want to go to England....no surprise. The only logical choice a refugee has is to go the place where they have the greatest chance of succeeding. Ofteb=n refugees simply do not have sufficient information to guide them to the best place, but I do not see anything wrong with seeking the best place if possible.

 

[bilby]

So no evidence then.

I thought not.

They obviously are leaving a state where there is nothing for them. Why should they stop in another country that has NOTHING FOR THEM? Use your head man. Evidence is not necessary here. The fact is there is a large camp in Calais full or refugees that want to go to England....no surprise. The only logical choice a refugee has is to go the place where they have the greatest chance of succeeding. Ofteb=n refugees simply do not have sufficient information to guide them to the best place, but I do not see anything wrong with seeking the best place if possible.

Sure. But there is no evidence whatsoever that 'best' means 'welfare'.

If you ask the refugees, you will find that what they really want is a job, not a hand-out. And they are denied both, while the fascist morons complain that they are taking so much of both as to harm the locals. The anti-refugee argument is built upon a vast edifice of lies, half-truths and illogic.

 

[untermensche]

No you don't. You just need to treat people unfairly and make sure you sit on the money. And reward people for how much they kiss your ass. They just need to belong to identifiable groups. Could be anything really. Even just arbitrary shit. Saddam was notoriously erratic. You can easily manipulate people into sectarian violence this way, which he did.

There's a famous film when he takes power. He forces one half of the parliamentarians shoot the other half. Just random terror to keep them on their toes. The guy was a complete fucking psycho maniac.

I remember well his purge of their parliamentarians. I agree with BOTH OF YOU. Unfortunately, Dr. Zoidberg has chosen to condemn the LESSER of two evils in Iraq, leaving the #1 all time killer and torturer in Iraq free to enjoy his Crawford Texas ranch:

There is no question that Saddam was a bad man, but Untermensche is right about him. He is not the cause of the current violence in Iraq. The real problem with America...no understanding in our leadership of how to use soft power...for something good in an international sense. Instead, our current Prez is on the same course as our last one. That is unfortunate.

What I said was that the violence carried out by Husein was not "sectarian" violence.

And of course it was not.

It was run of the mill dictatorial violence, the kind that is supported all over the world by the US. When Hussein gassed the Kurds with US helicopters the Reagan administration did not utter a peep. Instead it moved to remove Iraq from the list of terrorist nations so it could sell the weapons for the invasion of Iran. Which again was NOT sectarian violence.

The sectarian violence in Iraq begins after the US attack and the brilliant idea by Bremer to separate people according to sect.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You've got to be kidding!! Where the f...k are they heading for if not to the welfare states of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy, often passing through countries with little or no welfare payments.

They go the NW European countries because they have exaggerated and essentially incorrect notions about immigrant welfare entitlements. There are many myths propagated by the opponents of immigration, and one of the biggest is that anyone who enters, say, the UK, is immediately entitled to all kind of handouts.

This is simply untrue, and a casual Google search will easily inform about the real situation. Hint: welfare entitlement depends crucially on the status of the immigrant. Immigrants from non-EEA states (who are the people being discussed in this thread) who are subject to immigration control (and most will be) are not normally entitled to means-tested benefits such as income support or housing benefit.

fG

Not all illegals will receive benefits because for instance those who have no ID and refuse to give their birth dates may be allowed to simply roam about since they cannot be deported.
There is a whole underground workplace for cheap exploited and cut price labour in restaurants, casual work unloading trucks, fruit picking and small factories. Indeed not being allowed to work officially there used to be a lot of work. In Southall for instance, illegal migrants share a shed (as in sheds with beds) and can pay up to £1,000.00 per month (total sharing). Some resort to petty crime.
It is difficult for the government to crack down on these as current laws forbid entry without advance notification. The laws however are complex on benefits but then in general illegals prefer to disappear. Due to unemployment in the UK some illegals now wish to return but don't have the money to do so. where in some cases there were at least small farms to go back to or a small business. Some come to earn more money due to economic hardship or low income back home.

However, in reality those who are migrating are able to afford the snake head fees, and other expenses to reach the UK with some money in their pockets.

Few have addressed the failure of their own governments to raise the standards of living through economic reforms and reduction of corruption. India boasts as one of the fastest growing economies. This is a large economy but does not translate into higher standards for all. The majority which are poor are there simply to face exploitation to enrich their employers. If they were paid more, the money would circulate in the economy and create more jobs. Then less would try to look abroad. Emigration has also caused a loss of skills such as scientists and doctors. However, India does seem to be paying more for IT, and certain engineering skills, though not a lot. Many choose to work in the UAE. Ironically they work in some companies which then work for Indian companies such as ONGC (The state run Oil and Natural Gas Corporation).
Nonetheless Europe has its own problems to deal with whire poorer countries should take more responsibility for their own people so as to ease the traffic into Europe. In addition the wars we created have resulted in Asylum seekers (with migrants who are taking a piggy back on this traffic).

 

[repoman]

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't believe you are the spokesman for "most people".

But Britain and it's support of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people is a major reason these refugees exist.

You keep playing the same old song. I'm sure the disc is worn out by now. For the last time, these people are victims of the Sunni & Shia war that's been raging since the paedophile founded this death cult!

And didn't I say whatever was happening the West made things worse. We too have been constantly at war with each other until very recently. Even then we have had the war affecting Kosova in Europe.

 

[angelo]

For the last time, these people are victims of the Sunni & Shia war that's been raging since the paedophile founded this death cult!

The Sunni/Shia split didn't occur until Mohammed's death.

Okay. Point given. Let me re phrase it then. Shia/Sunni have been at war with each other since the paedophile's death!

 

[angelo]

They obviously are leaving a state where there is nothing for them. Why should they stop in another country that has NOTHING FOR THEM? Use your head man. Evidence is not necessary here. The fact is there is a large camp in Calais full or refugees that want to go to England....no surprise. The only logical choice a refugee has is to go the place where they have the greatest chance of succeeding. Ofteb=n refugees simply do not have sufficient information to guide them to the best place, but I do not see anything wrong with seeking the best place if possible.

Sure. But there is no evidence whatsoever that 'best' means 'welfare'.

If you ask the refugees, you will find that what they really want is a job, not a hand-out. And they are denied both, while the fascist morons complain that they are taking so much of both as to harm the locals. The anti-refugee argument is built upon a vast edifice of lies, half-truths and illogic.

If someone offered you say, $2000 a week for doing fuck all but pray five times a day, and another offered you the same but with no praying time, but you'd have to work your ass off doing manual labour. Which would you choose?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sure. But there is no evidence whatsoever that 'best' means 'welfare'.

If you ask the refugees, you will find that what they really want is a job, not a hand-out. And they are denied both, while the fascist morons complain that they are taking so much of both as to harm the locals. The anti-refugee argument is built upon a vast edifice of lies, half-truths and illogic.

If someone offered you say, $2000 a week for doing fuck all but pray five times a day, and another offered you the same but with no praying time, but you'd have to work your ass off doing manual labour. Which would you choose?

Can you let me have the details so I can apply for the job.

Interestingly enough we have a word for this in the English language frankalmoigne (or spelt frankalmoin).
This was where the Church was given land by the king in exchange for holding prayers and masses for the soul of the monarch.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

They obviously are leaving a state where there is nothing for them. Why should they stop in another country that has NOTHING FOR THEM? Use your head man. Evidence is not necessary here. The fact is there is a large camp in Calais full or refugees that want to go to England....no surprise. The only logical choice a refugee has is to go the place where they have the greatest chance of succeeding. Ofteb=n refugees simply do not have sufficient information to guide them to the best place, but I do not see anything wrong with seeking the best place if possible.

ok, so it's fine for me to just move to USA then is it, get a nice free flat, welfare etc..and medical, cos like it's better than where I'm at now???

 

[untermensche]

The Sunni/Shia split didn't occur until Mohammed's death.

Okay. Point given. Let me re phrase it then. Shia/Sunni have been at war with each other since the paedophile's death!

There was no "war" between these groups in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Sunni and Shiite lived side by side, not even knowing what the other was.

It is a LIE to say there was sectarian violence between these groups in Iraq before the US terrorist attack that blew up the place.

That attack, like many attacks in history set these people back hundreds of years. Mission Accomplished!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Okay. Point given. Let me re phrase it then. Shia/Sunni have been at war with each other since the paedophile's death!

There was no "war" between these groups in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Sunni and Shiite lived side by side, not even knowing what the other was.

It is a LIE to say there was sectarian violence between these groups in Iraq before the US terrorist attack that blew up the place.

That attack, like many attacks in history set these people back hundreds of years. Mission Accomplished!

The Ottoman empire was almost constantly at war with Persia. Ottomans = Sunni. Persia = Shia

The problem with using the term "sectarian violence" is that it's always bullshit. The real reason is always control over resources or just power. All conflicts have the same root. Calling a conflict "sectarian" just acts to hide the real reason for the violence.

The reason why the Ottoman - Persia conflict might fly under the radar of sectarian violence is because it so obviously wasn't about religion. But it clearly fits the definition

 

[TSwizzle]

The problem with using the term "sectarian violence" is that it's always bullshit. The real reason is always control over resources or just power. All conflicts have the same root. Calling a conflict "sectarian" just acts to hide the real reason for the violence.

LOL. Let's face it, take away chlorophyll, grass isn't really green is it ?

 

[bigfield]

Sure. But there is no evidence whatsoever that 'best' means 'welfare'.

If you ask the refugees, you will find that what they really want is a job, not a hand-out. And they are denied both, while the fascist morons complain that they are taking so much of both as to harm the locals. The anti-refugee argument is built upon a vast edifice of lies, half-truths and illogic.

If someone offered you say, $2000 a week for doing fuck all but pray five times a day, and another offered you the same but with no praying time, but you'd have to work your ass off doing manual labour. Which would you choose?

Nobody is offering $2000 a week to do nothing.

Another notch on Angelo's bullshit tally. Someone fetch another blackboard--this one's almost full.