The refugee crisis.

[Red Frog]

But surely a person entering a country, from a safe country, without being subjected to the legally approved process, and using means to circumvent that process, can only be described as an illegal immigrant?

Anyone leaving Turkey and illegally entering another neighbouring country, without subjecting themselves to the normal means of entry, should be correctly described as an illegal immigrant surely?

Turkey is a safe country according to the United Nations.

Therefore, every single man, woman and child who put themselves into the Aegean, at night, in a fucking rubber dinghy, is not a a refugee but something else...

Well at least you're now contributing to the discussion rather than just spouting bile, and for only the second time in this thread, you've said something halfway reasonable, albeit pretty limited. You're still skating over the surface of the issue by making it about terminology, though I suspect that's helpful to you in order to justify your "not my problem" attitude.

Yes, a refugee will often become an illegal immigrant as they seek a better life. Your definition seems to imply that everything would be just fine if these people stopped in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Well, in case you haven't been following the news, that's exactly what's been happening for the last four years. The reasons that the problem is spilling over onto your doorstep now is that more and more people - almost a third of the former population now - are leaving Syria and making the conditions in the badly under-resourced camps increasingly difficult. While parents see a risk of their children receiving no decent education in that context for years to come, and no solutions in sight, they're taking their fate into their own hands and becoming "illegal immigrants". Do you think they throw themselves lightly into that "fucking rubber dinghy" to steal your hard-earned tax-euros?

Migrants have been moving in their millions from poor and strife-ridden countries towards wealthier ones forever. Between 1815 and 1932, 60 million Europeans emigrated to the "new world", which puts the current migrant crisis into some sort of context. So I'm not sure how your preferred use of language helps anything, except to attempt to stigmatise them.

You and I were quite lucky we didn't face a similar attitude when we chose to emigrate from the UK, weren't we?

[Ironside]

There's not point in discussing anything with you if you can't acknowledge the difference between the two. I wonder, if you had kids and had to flee a country ripped apart by civil war; only to find yourself in a camp with 10's of 1000's of other 'illegal immigrants', with little sanitation, accommodation and no prospect of supporting your kids, or giving them the basics, wouldn't you try and go where you could?

I know the difference, your post clearly shows that you don't.

[Skinny Pete]

So, cutting through all the crap, you are saying that as the first country the refugees arrive in is a safe haven, then their wish not to stay there but head off to more wealthy safe havens automatically turns them into economic migrants rather than refugees.

Hard to disagree with that

[Reg Smeeton]

So, cutting through all the crap, you are saying that as the first country the refugees arrive in is a safe haven, then their wish not to stay there but head off to more wealthy safe havens automatically turns them into economic migrants rather than refugees.

Hard to disagree with that

ATM, there's a standoff in Denmark between migrants who fancy Sweden over Germany, but don't want to register in Denmark.

[Ironside]

So, cutting through all the crap, you are saying that as the first country the refugees arrive in is a safe haven, then their wish not to stay there but head off to more wealthy safe havens automatically turns them into economic migrants rather than refugees.

Hard to disagree with that

Yes however an economic migrant has various options and routes available to them to apply to enter the EU and other countries legally.

When people use all means possible, except the aforementioned legal means, to cross international borders they can only be described as illegal immigrants.

[Skinny Pete]

So, if 800,000 'refugees' are indeed accepted by Germany, does that then automatically entitle them to free movement within Europe?

[Not that Nice If I'm Honest]

Yes.

[Reg Smeeton]

So, if 800,000 'refugees' are indeed accepted by Germany, does that then automatically entitle them to free movement within Europe?

Difficult to say....as things stand a refugee in Germany must wait 8 years for citizenship....whereas in Sweden, they're giving Syrians citizenship as a priorlty.

I'd imagine the Germans may wish to change their law also.

The Dutch had always taken in large numbers of Somalis, giving them houses, bus passes, education etc, and eventually citizenship. so 20,000 or so upped sticks and moved here.  Their main gripe, the Dutch policy of trying to disperse them as a means of integration.

[ghanimah]

But surely a person entering a country, from a safe country, without being subjected to the legally approved process, and using means to circumvent that process, can only be described as an illegal immigrant?

Anyone leaving Turkey and illegally entering another neighbouring country, without subjecting themselves to the normal means of entry, should be correctly described as an illegal immigrant surely?

Turkey is a safe country according to the United Nations.

Therefore, every single man, woman and child who put themselves into the Aegean, at night, in a fucking rubber dinghy, is not a a refugee but something else...

No...they are asylum seekers, because although Turkey signs up to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention, they did so with geographical limitations. This only applies to members of the Council of Europe. Given Syria isn't a member of the CoE, Syrians can't be given refugee status therefore they have to move onto a country which will grant them asylum.

[Outletred]

So, if 800,000 'refugees' are indeed accepted by Germany, does that then automatically entitle them to free movement within Europe?

I am not sure it does to be honest. This is the reason many do not want to be processed in Hungary for example as I believe that in the case of refugee status they have to settle in the country in which they are registered.

[Not that Nice If I'm Honest]

No...they are asylum seekers, because although Turkey signs up to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention, they did so with geographical limitations. This only applies to members of the Council of Europe. Given Syria isn't a member of the CoE, Syrians can't be given refugee status therefore they have to move onto a country which will grant them asylum.

Greece ?

[Dostoyevsky]

Tell you what, fuck off and defend your own territory instead of causing mayhem in places you have no intention of assimalating into. Benefits shopping shows you up. Good luck to Hungary for slamming the door in these parasites faces.

[Dostoyevsky]

Isn't it kind of these scumbags to put women and children first for a publicity shoot.

[Dostoyevsky]

It's very easy to make 'compassionate' gestures and comments to make you feel good. Who is going to clear up your mess?

[tans]

Evening dossy, been on the white lightning?