Mass migration into Europe is only accelerating!

[Loren Pechtel]

This has disaster written all over it.

They should start shooting people in the sea rather than recognize them as desperate human beings needing compassion.

No. They should force the ships back to shore and then sink them.

- - - Updated - - -

As a compassionate person, I'm not sure I can live with the tragedy of relatively poor places like Libya losing out on these wonderful citizens who will add so much to their tax base, economy and commitment to western values.

It's tragic, but you're a big boy. You'll find a way to manage and get right back to the important business of being petrified of the needy.

No first world society can survive being flooded by all the third worlder's that would like to come.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I know, they are sending most back.

Exactly. If this boats are interdicted in the water by the authorities, they are sent back. If these people seeking entry into the EU land on EU soil, they are supposed to be processed by EU law. That means sorting out the validity of their claims. If they are found to be refugees or asylum-seekers, they are resettled. If not, they are sent back. This has been explained many times. And it is usually understood by most reasonable, disinterested adults with even a modicum of normal human compassion.

Only the idiots get sent back. The rest know how to make themselves undeportable.

 

[PyramidHead]

No first world society can survive being flooded by all the third worlder's that would like to come.

Amazing. Scared shitless of hungry people.

There's just the one world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No first world society can survive being flooded by all the third worlder's that would like to come.

Amazing. Scared shitless of hungry people.

There's just the one world.

Amazing. Unable to comprehend reality.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No first world society can survive being flooded by all the third worlder's that would like to come.

Amazing. Scared shitless of hungry people.

There's just the one world.

It's a matter of economics. If you flood a country it means shortages of housing, medical facilities , jobs and schooling. For example, Ealing Council welcomed thousands of migrants into its housing. Now it's not possible for poorer people to obtain affordable housing in London. It's time for developing

The West has poured trillions into many of the poorer countries since the war but they have not really developed. There are a lot of reasons. However, this also causes a brain drain of skilled people from those countries. You will find brilliant barristers, men and women who are Nigerian and educated there. They even speak with polished English accents and take on difficult cases. People like this are a loss for their own countries.

 

[laughing dog]

Amazing. Scared shitless of hungry people.

There's just the one world.

Amazing. Unable to comprehend reality.

The reality is that there is no flood of third worlders or Muslim migrants.

 

[Jayjay]

No first world society can survive being flooded by all the third worlder's that would like to come.

Amazing. Scared shitless of hungry people.

There's just the one world.

Nobody is suggesting we eat them. Yet.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. I've read enough to conclude the rightish posters here operate on a morality of money and fear. How else can those topics lead in every discussion about immigration? Obviously since Europe is generally net negative in growth immigrants would be a boon to those economies, but the haters don't see it that way. They see immigration as crushing the economies of those powerful democracies (generally) and destroying the white purity there.

 

[Ford]

OK. I've read enough to conclude the rightish posters here operate on a morality of money and fear. How else can those topics lead in every discussion about immigration? Obviously since Europe is generally net negative in growth immigrants would be a boon to those economies, but the haters don't see it that way. They see immigration as crushing the economies of those powerful democracies (generally) and destroying the white purity there.

Yep. The mentality is that anyone leaving a predominately brown country to move to a predominately white country is probably up to no good. Coupled with a fear that maybe the mighty European culture is instead so weak that an influx of swarthy types will somehow destroy it in short order.

Ironically a lot of these posts are coming from good 'ole Melting Pot 'Murica. A land built on immigrants. Wave after wave of people arriving on boats. Is there anti-immigrant sentiment? Yes, but it always comes from the descendants of the previous immigrant waves.

 

[TSwizzle]

If only the discussion was about immigration you'd have a point. These are not immigrants by any measure.

 

[Jayjay]

It's a bit hypocritical of Americans to preach to Europe about refugees. In Italy alone, in 2016 there were about 180,000 entrants who crossed the Mediterranean. USA, a country with population 5 times that of Italy and 30 times the land area, only let in about 100,000. This year that number will drop to about half if not less. If you yanks are so worried about the flood of people in Europe, why not take them in yourself and let them be a boon to your economy?

 

[TSwizzle]

Most of them are not refugees, they are economic migrants.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nearly 1,200 migrants picked up off Libya, heading to Italy
Are we helping desperate migrants — or just people smugglers?

If you do not send these mass migrants back but keep bringing them into Europe, that merely encourages more mass migration. Especially since they are picking these migrants off the coast of Libya, doing the smugglers' work for them.
This open door policy toward mass migration must stop. I think UK leaving the EU is overall a bad choice (for both UK and EU), but I can understand their frustrations with suicidal policies EU is pushing.

Please submit proof of "acceleration." Thank you in advance.

 

[J842P]

It's a bit hypocritical of Americans to preach to Europe about refugees. In Italy alone, in 2016 there were about 180,000 entrants who crossed the Mediterranean. USA, a country with population 5 times that of Italy and 30 times the land area, only let in about 100,000. This year that number will drop to about half if not less. If you yanks are so worried about the flood of people in Europe, why not take them in yourself and let them be a boon to your economy?

I actually do think an argument can be made that the US is better equipped, culturally, economically, and geographically, to accept refugees than Europe.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a bit hypocritical of Americans to preach to Europe about refugees. In Italy alone, in 2016 there were about 180,000 entrants who crossed the Mediterranean. USA, a country with population 5 times that of Italy and 30 times the land area, only let in about 100,000. This year that number will drop to about half if not less. If you yanks are so worried about the flood of people in Europe, why not take them in yourself and let them be a boon to your economy?

I actually do think an argument can be made that the US is better equipped, culturally, economically, and geographically, to accept refugees than Europe.

We can accept refugees and are obliged to do so by treaty but we cannot accept illegal immigrants, the first issue being infrastructure for hospitals, schools and affordable housing in London. The main issue is volume of people each year.

The US has economic problems itself which affect the poorer citizens. It too would have a level of sustainability.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

OK. I've read enough to conclude the rightish posters here operate on a morality of money and fear. How else can those topics lead in every discussion about immigration? Obviously since Europe is generally net negative in growth immigrants would be a boon to those economies, but the haters don't see it that way. They see immigration as crushing the economies of those powerful democracies (generally) and destroying the white purity there.

I think it is more a concern over culture than over race. And though I'm Canadian and encourage a lot of immigration to here, including a lot of refugees, I do see some basis for their concern. If we did take in everybody who wanted to come we would indeed have a serious problem, both economic and cultural.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Amazing. Unable to comprehend reality.

The reality is that there is no flood of third worlders or Muslim migrants.

1) We have 8 figures with illegals in the US, mostly third worlders. Is that not a flood?

2) The reality is our measures against illegals are enough to keep it below the level of inundating the first world.

Your argument is akin to "we don't need this dam, there haven't been any floods in some time".

 

[laughing dog]

The reality is that there is no flood of third worlders or Muslim migrants.

1) We have 8 figures with illegals in the US, mostly third worlders. Is that not a flood?

Are you referring to the estimated 11 million people ? A number that has fallen recently and represents a long history of inflow. 11 million compared to a population over 310 million is not much. So it is not a flood by any reasonable interpretation of the term "flood".

2) The reality is our measures against illegals are enough to keep it below the level of inundating the first world.

Your argument is akin to "we don't need this dam, there haven't been any floods in some time".

No, my argument is a simple recognition of the reality along with a refusal to bow to hysterical nativism.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. I've read enough to conclude the rightish posters here operate on a morality of money and fear. How else can those topics lead in every discussion about immigration? Obviously since Europe is generally net negative in growth immigrants would be a boon to those economies, but the haters don't see it that way. They see immigration as crushing the economies of those powerful democracies (generally) and destroying the white purity there.

I think it is more a concern over culture than over race. And though I'm Canadian and encourage a lot of immigration to here, including a lot of refugees, I do see some basis for their concern. If we did take in everybody who wanted to come we would indeed have a serious problem, both economic and cultural.

I'd rather call a spade a spade. It's about introducing another religion into a culture that has just about resolved the problems of another. I understand that is a problem and it will require work. But, if we - I include America and Canada here - are going to continue along the road to secularism we need find ways to overcome those problems. So let's get at it even while we benefit from increased production potential the immigrants inspire.

 

[whichphilosophy]

1) We have 8 figures with illegals in the US, mostly third worlders. Is that not a flood?

Are you referring to the estimated 11 million people ? A number that has fallen recently and represents a long history of inflow. 11 million compared to a population over 310 million is not much. So it is not a flood by any reasonable interpretation of the term "flood".

2) The reality is our measures against illegals are enough to keep it below the level of inundating the first world.

Your argument is akin to "we don't need this dam, there haven't been any floods in some time".

No, my argument is a simple recognition of the reality along with a refusal to bow to hysterical nativism.

Pulling the race card doesn't answer the issue (Nativism).

The vetting system should allow the country to absorb reasonable amounts of migrants plus refugees as allocated. The only hysteria I see is when I see signs borne by people in pink pussycat hats which read No human is illegal.

The US has a right also to expel terrorists such as Rasmea Odeh a revolutionary member of the PFLP (who lied about her convictions to gain asylum in the USA and spread hate against in the US against the US, and any convicted criminals who are illegal.

Since there is a push to collapse all US borders and security, then we cannot tell how any illegals pour into the USA.

To accommodate more people in any country you need to build houses, hospitals, schools which cost US$billions.

To the Marxists and their marionettes as long as it's someone else's money, that's okay.

 

[fromderinside]

To accommodate more people in any country you need to build houses, hospitals, schools which cost US$billions.

Immigrants, almost by definition, stimulate and supply resources to do these things. Cost is as boggy man the fearful want to put in from of an obvious solution to existing problems.