ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st December 2018, 01:26 PM   #41
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
With that logic, you should be in the Government.

Well played sir.

Or a Big Brexit Backer. Maybe Nigel Lawson can put the Captain up in his Paris pad.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:28 PM   #42
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by baron View Post
France has being going down hill for a couple of decades now but it's not that bad.
For the win!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:36 PM   #43
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,275
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
When there's over 1000 asylum seekers arriving every day they can call it a "crisis".

Actually, about 1400 in a single slow moving group of rowing boats due to arrive in a month or three would qualify as a "Caravan" like emergency justifying sending out the troops even if they couldn't act on our soil, oh and authorising the army to shot to kill if the 'invaders' throw a pebble off the beach...

...or something.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 03:09 PM   #44
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
Originally Posted by baron View Post
From the numbers it appears that the vast majority of people at risk are healthy men in their 20s and 30s with between £10K and £30K in their pockets to give to people smugglers. I guess the women, children and elderly just stay and tough it out.
I do not see it as smuggling when they arrive in the UK to claim asylum. Their intention is to make themselves know to the UK authorities and to then live here legally. Smuggling is when people are brought here and live anonymously, kept that way so they can be used as slaves, often against their will.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 03:43 PM   #45
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by baron View Post
From the numbers it appears that the vast majority of people at risk are healthy men in their 20s and 30s with between £10K and £30K in their pockets to give to people smugglers. I guess the women, children and elderly just stay and tough it out.
Do you send the unhealthy men, women, children, and elderly on a journey full of hardships to establish a presence and gainful employment while the healthy male stays behind?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 04:02 PM   #46
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,315
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I do not see it as smuggling when they arrive in the UK to claim asylum. Their intention is to make themselves know to the UK authorities and to then live here legally. Smuggling is when people are brought here and live anonymously, kept that way so they can be used as slaves, often against their will.
As I said earlier, why do refugees not claim asylum in the nation they first arrive at? In my view you can’t run an immigration system based on the desire of refugees to settle in a particular country.

And you are using a strange definition of “smuggling”. The simple meaning is to convey (someone or something) somewhere secretly and illicitly. This is what is happening and is what the UK wants to prevent.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 05:05 AM   #47
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
We have one boat to stop them with.

All they have to do is coordinate a bit, send three or four boats over at once and we are scuppered.
We have more than one boat, but not necessarily in the right place sea.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 05:34 AM   #48
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
As I said earlier, why do refugees not claim asylum in the nation they first arrive at?
There may be political, cultural, family and language reasons why someone would want to claim asylum in a particular country.

Quote:
In my view you can’t run an immigration system based on the desire of refugees to settle in a particular country.
Any country's system has to adapt the how many refugees (of all forms) turn up. The countries that are more popular have to put in extra resources to cope.

Quote:
And you are using a strange definition of “smuggling”. The simple meaning is to convey (someone or something) somewhere secretly and illicitly. This is what is happening and is what the UK wants to prevent.
The UK (and any other country) legally and morally cannot prevent asylum claims. It cannot turn away an asylum seeker, their claim has to be assessed first.

I am differentiating between the forms of human trafficking, whereby smuggling in people to be slaves is entirely different to asylum seekers.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:37 AM   #49
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,099
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
As I said earlier, why do refugees not claim asylum in the nation they first arrive at?
Most of them do. Hence why countries like Lebanon, Jordania and Turkey have far more refugees from Syria than all European countries combined. Considering that the economic, social and security conditions in these countries often leave refugees in very precarious positions it's understandable that many would seek to move elsewhere. Only a tiny insignificant portion of refugees worldwide will be subject to "third country resettlement" so putting your faith in that is really a non starter. Even the EU members can't implement a fair redistribution of refugees.

That said a large portion, if not the vast majority of those seeking to move the UK instead staying in France do not have good reasons for why they can't stay there instead.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 1st January 2019 at 09:39 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:40 AM   #50
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,382
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Most of them do. Hence why countries like Lebanon, Jordania and Turkey have far more refugees from Syria than all European countries combined. Considering that the economic, social and security conditions in these countries often leave refugees in very precarious positions it's understandable that many would seek to move elsewhere. Only a tiny insignificant portion of refugees worldwide will be subject to "third country resettlement" so putting your faith in that is really a non starter. Even the EU members can't implement a fair redistribution of refugees.

That said a large portion, if not the vast majority of those seeking to move the UK from instead staying in France do not have good reasons for why they can't stay there instead.
That's the thing. Apparently nearly six people a day is a migrant crisis for the UK, yet Lebanon, with a population of about 6-million and a per-capita GDP of about $19000 has about 1.5-million Syrian refugees.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 11:35 AM   #51
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I do not see it as smuggling when they arrive in the UK to claim asylum. Their intention is to make themselves know to the UK authorities and to then live here legally. Smuggling is when people are brought here and live anonymously, kept that way so they can be used as slaves, often against their will.
It's not. Smuggling has no bearing on what happens after the event.

Quote:
Migrant smuggling... ...the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a state party of which the person is not a national".
Entry into the UK across the Channel in a dingy is illegal entry, regardless of what the immigrants do when they get here.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Do you send the unhealthy men, women, children, and elderly on a journey full of hardships to establish a presence and gainful employment while the healthy male stays behind?
What do you mean, send? Nobody sends them, they choose to journey through multiple safe countries in order to reach one that better suits their tastes. Apparently their own country is too dangerous for them to remain, but safe enough for their wives and daughters. Funny, that.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 12:36 PM   #52
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's not. Smuggling has no bearing on what happens after the event.
I think it is very important to differentiate between people who enter the UK (and anywhere else) who are either

1 - brought in as slaves
2 - assisted into the country and then independently try and find work
3 - assisted into the country to claim asylum.

Quote:
Entry into the UK across the Channel in a dingy is illegal entry, regardless of what the immigrants do when they get here.
It is not illegal to enter and claim asylum.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 01:12 PM   #53
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's not. Smuggling has no bearing on what happens after the event.







Entry into the UK across the Channel in a dingy is illegal entry, regardless of what the immigrants do when they get here.







What do you mean, send? Nobody sends them, they choose to journey through multiple safe countries in order to reach one that better suits their tastes. Apparently their own country is too dangerous for them to remain, but safe enough for their wives and daughters. Funny, that.
Or they can't afford to all move at once, or the able-bodied young male is the member of the family a cartel or jihadist group wants to coerce into doing their bidding or cultural views are different or five thousand other reasons people lucky enough to be born someplace stable have never had to concern themselves with and, even when asked to try, demonstrate no willingness to.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 01:24 PM   #54
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,810
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
I think that's the main reason for the grave concern. People are going to die trying to get here.


Because that is so much more offensive than thousands dying every year in refugee camps.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 01:50 PM   #55
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
This is an odd mixed message from a Telegraph journalist;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ndation-widget

"Britain takes seriously its responsibilities to offer refuge to those genuinely at risk of persecution in their home countries; our reputation and record in this respect is one of which none of us has any reason to feel ashamed.
But while we may agree with their preference, we are under no obligation, legal or moral, to offer asylum to those who have chosen the UK over France as their future home"

He is pointing to the UK's proud tradition and then ruling out asylum unless you can enter the UK directly!? Asylum seekers welcome, but only if you fly in and not if you have crossed the Channel from France.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 01:51 PM   #56
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,810
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
....

Australia does more than its share when it come to taking refugees. It takes between 5000 and 6000 refugees per year. That is a very big number given the population of 25m. USA takes 52,000 with a population of 327m - to match that rate, USA would need to up their rate of refugee acceptance to between 65,000 and 80,000.
Why use per capita and not square kilometers or in the case of Oz because so much land is arid, how much the land and water can support?

Quote:
I see no reason why the Aussies should simply allow boat-people to shortcut the system. I don't agree with the offshore detention thing, they should rescue them, supply medical and humanitarian aid, and take them straight back to Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia or wherever they have come from.
Like in the US, people are bypassing the system because there is no system for them.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 02:55 PM   #57
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think it is very important to differentiate between people who enter the UK (and anywhere else) who are either

1 - brought in as slaves
2 - assisted into the country and then independently try and find work
3 - assisted into the country to claim asylum.
It is, but that doesn't affect the legality of their entry methods, or the definition of smuggling.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It is not illegal to enter and claim asylum.
It's illegal to enter the country illegally, regardless of who you are or why you're coming here.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 03:10 PM   #58
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Or they can't afford to all move at once, or the able-bodied young male is the member of the family a cartel or jihadist group wants to coerce into doing their bidding or cultural views are different or five thousand other reasons people lucky enough to be born someplace stable have never had to concern themselves with and, even when asked to try, demonstrate no willingness to.
I don't understand what these reasons are, or why they would compel someone to travel through multiple safe countries to the one of their choice. I'm also not aware that any significant percentage of these young men have brought, or tried to bring, family members over once they have got a job. That may well be because they never intend to, or it may be that the vast majority of the recent influx do not have jobs and instead are living off the welfare of whichever country they have chosen to settle. Also, I'm not sure that increasing the recent migration levels by 800-1000% (based on the average household size of the majority influx countries) would be a particularly good idea.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 06:28 AM   #59
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't understand what these reasons are, or why they would compel someone to travel through multiple safe countries to the one of their choice. I'm also not aware that any significant percentage of these young men have brought, or tried to bring, family members over once they have got a job.
Just because they may or may not be doing that, doesn't mean that they didn't think that they could do it, once "here." It seems a lot of migrants have very inaccurate beliefs about what they can do when they reach the countries they are trying to get to.

Quote:
That may well be because they never intend to, or it may be that the vast majority of the recent influx do not have jobs and instead are living off the welfare of whichever country they have chosen to settle.
Paywall. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK until their status is settled, but their inability to find a job once it is not proof that they never intended to seek one. Again, there is a mismatch between what they think they will be able to do, and what they can actually achieve.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 2nd January 2019 at 06:29 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 06:59 AM   #60
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't understand what these reasons are, or why they would compel someone to travel through multiple safe countries to the one of their choice. ....
Why are you advocating restricting asylum to only those who can fly from their home country directly to the UK?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 07:46 AM   #61
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Why are you advocating restricting asylum to only those who can fly from their home country directly to the UK?
Well, the Guardian article you cited previously seemed to suggest that the majority are of asylum seekers are indeed flying direct.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 08:07 AM   #62
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Just because they may or may not be doing that, doesn't mean that they didn't think that they could do it, once "here." It seems a lot of migrants have very inaccurate beliefs about what they can do when they reach the countries they are trying to get to.
We don't know what's going on in their heads, we can only base our observations on what they have done, and are doing, and extrapolate from that if needs be. Most are not getting jobs and are not setting up a new life for their families, that's just a fact.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Paywall. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK until their status is settled, but their inability to find a job once it is not proof that they never intended to seek one. Again, there is a mismatch between what they think they will be able to do, and what they can actually achieve.
I think you need to give them more credit. They have shown themselves to be very clued up on the criteria for entry into various countries (the refugee 'charities' see to that) and I doubt that the majority are under the illusion that jobs are freely available in their country of choice.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Why are you advocating restricting asylum to only those who can fly from their home country directly to the UK?
I advocate taking the legal route of asylum application. I thought you'd be all for that. It doesn't bode well for the future integration and contribution of an individual if the very first thing he does on foreign soil is break the law. Only yesterday a trawler was stolen from a French harbour, although fortunately it was turned back before it crossed into British waters. It was full of refugees. There's no reason why an individual can't take a plane and claim asylum legally. Of course, they might not have a passport or identification, but that's mostly because they're 30 and want to pass themselves off as a 15 year old to lubricate the acceptance process at the other end.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 08:25 AM   #63
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by baron View Post
We don't know what's going on in their heads, we can only base our observations on what they have done, and are doing, and extrapolate from that if needs be. Most are not getting jobs and are not setting up a new life for their families, that's just a fact.
"We shouldn't speculate, but we can extrapolate and continue to only mention they have no jobs and take benefits over and over, insisting that any explanations for why this is so are out of bounds for discussion and acting like there's no negative assumptions getting made...mmhm."

Quote:
I think you need to give them more credit. They have shown themselves to be very clued up on the criteria for entry into various countries (the refugee 'charities' see to that) and I doubt that the majority are under the illusion that jobs are freely available in their country of choice.
Yes, those scare-quotes charities what with their deviously helping people fill out laborious government paperwork and practice turns of phrase that help convey their story in a language they might not be conversationally proficient in.

Quote:
I advocate taking the legal route of asylum application. I thought you'd be all for that. It doesn't bode well for the future integration and contribution of an individual if the very first thing he does on foreign soil is break the law.
Yeah, it's real easy to advocate for "the legal route" (that is being intentionally operated in a manner hostile to applicants).

Also, hey is there some kind of legal approach to dealing with craft in distress on the open sea? Got a legal opinion on that, as well?

Have you ever fudged your taxes? Failed to update your address on your driver's license or other government issued id? Let someone fill out a form and then sign it yourself or vice versa?

Get over your outrage. The vast majority of "illegals" are actual just in violation of a procedural civil statute. The constant blasting of "unlawful/illegal" at the very act of entry (or overstay) itself is specifically meant to cement the whole "foreigner = criminal" slur.

Quote:
Only yesterday a trawler was stolen from a French harbour, although fortunately it was turned back before it crossed into British waters. It was full of refugees. There's no reason why an individual can't take a plane and claim asylum legally. Of course, they might not have a passport or identification, but that's mostly because they're 30 and want to pass themselves off as a 15 year old to lubricate the acceptance process at the other end.
I see. "They" are all perfectly embodied by this one example of stupidity you found.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 2nd January 2019 at 08:28 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 08:28 AM   #64
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
We don't know what's going on in their heads, we can only base our observations on what they have done, and are doing, and extrapolate from that if needs be. Most are not getting jobs and are not setting up a new life for their families, that's just a fact.
Chicken-and-egg. If they can't get jobs, they can't establish conditions that would allow them to bring relatives over.

Quote:
I think you need to give them more credit. They have shown themselves to be very clued up on the criteria for entry into various countries (the refugee 'charities' see to that) and I doubt that the majority are under the illusion that jobs are freely available in their country of choice.
Sorry, but it flies in the face of common sense that thousands of people spend hundreds and thousands of pounds to get to the UK, just to exist on the absolute pittance of benefits.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 08:49 AM   #65
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
"We shouldn't speculate, but we can extrapolate and continue to only mention they have no jobs and take benefits over and over, insisting that any explanations for why this is so are out of bounds for discussion and acting like there's no negative assumptions getting made...mmhm."
Excuse me?

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Yes, those scare-quotes charities what with their deviously helping people fill out laborious government paperwork and practice turns of phrase that help convey their story in a language they might not be conversationally proficient in.
Don't get me wrong, there are charities out there doing good work and helping deserving people. None of them are in Calais, however. They are in the refugee camps in Syria and Yemen helping women and children who are in literal peril of death, not groups of able-bodied young men who think it's their right to rock up at their country of choice because they see economic advantage on the horizon.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Yeah, it's real easy to advocate for "the legal route" (that is being intentionally operated in a manner hostile to applicants).
So illegal passage across the world's busiest shipping lane in an overcrowded old dingy is less hostile than taking a plane journey? You need to check your head.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Also, hey is there some kind of legal approach to dealing with craft in distress on the open sea? Got a legal opinion on that, as well?
No, why would I?

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Have you ever fudged your taxes? Failed to update your address on your driver's license or other government issued id? Let someone fill out a form and then sign it yourself or vice versa?
No, never, although I can't see what that has to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Get over your outrage. The vast majority of "illegals" are actual just in violation of a procedural civil statute. The constant blasting of "unlawful/illegal" at the very act of entry (or overstay) itself is specifically meant to cement the whole "foreigner = criminal" slur.
Criminals are those who break the law. Maybe your views are so far left and anarchistic that you don't believe the law has authority over you, but that's just your opinion and as such irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I see. "They" are all perfectly embodied by this one example of stupidity you found.
No, that's why it's an example.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Chicken-and-egg. If they can't get jobs, they can't establish conditions that would allow them to bring relatives over.
That's right, and at the end of the day we're left with 75% of migrants on benefits in a country in which they have never contributed a single penny.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Sorry, but it flies in the face of common sense that thousands of people spend hundreds and thousands of pounds to get to the UK, just to exist on the absolute pittance of benefits.
But there are doing. That's a fact (as regards the wider Europe, specifically Germany). In the UK we've been a bit more discriminatory about who we let in and where they come from, hence the problem is nowhere near as pronounced. Also, that's a strange thing to say. If you believe that these people are fleeing for their lives (i.e. are genuine refugees) then are you saying that free housing, free health care, free education, weekly benefits and a safe environment is not worth bothering with?
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:15 AM   #66
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Excuse me?
Feigned incredulity.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, there are charities out there doing good work and helping deserving people. None of them are in Calais, however. They are in the refugee camps in Syria and Yemen helping women and children who are in literal peril of death, not groups of able-bodied young men who think it's their right to rock up at their country of choice because they see economic advantage on the horizon.
False dichotomy.

Quote:
So illegal passage across the world's busiest shipping lane in an overcrowded old dingy is less hostile than taking a plane journey? You need to check your head.
Rule of so.

Quote:
No, why would I?
Quote:
No, never, although I can't see what that has to do with anything.
To test if your advocacy for the law is consistent or if you're cherry-picking.

Since there are laws about craft in distress that are being flouted to dissuade refugees.

Basically "are you as upset by the government breaking laws as you are by immigrants breaking laws?"

Quote:
Criminals are those who break the law. Maybe your views are so far left and anarchistic that you don't believe the law has authority over you, but that's just your opinion and as such irrelevant.
Right, and I was giving examples of the same scale of law-breaking that people engage in all the time, but we don't go slandering each other over it.

Again, its a consistency thing.

Quote:
No, that's why it's an example.
Outliers do not give an accurate understanding of the typical, so when they get foisted up as a prop to pummel, I call it out.

Quote:
That's right, and at the end of the day we're left with 75% of migrants on benefits in a country in which they have never contributed a single penny.
Numerous attempts to describe why that is is the case continue to go unacknowledged by you, you just pivot back to this smear every time.

Quote:
But there are doing. That's a fact (as regards the wider Europe, specifically Germany). In the UK we've been a bit more discriminatory about who we let in and where they come from, hence the problem is nowhere near as pronounced. Also, that's a strange thing to say. If you believe that these people are fleeing for their lives (i.e. are genuine refugees) then are you saying that free housing, free health care, free education, weekly benefits and a safe environment is not worth bothering with?
I think discussing major social issues with people who just parrot the same 3 or 4 false narratives in the face of evidence is not worth bothering with at times.

They "are doing that" (in those cases where it is even true) because that's what they were told to do while waiting!

Maybe if half as much time was spent looking into the procedure itself as is spent spewing venom around, some improvement in the situation might occur.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 2nd January 2019 at 09:18 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:15 AM   #67
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's right, and at the end of the day we're left with 75% of migrants on benefits in a country in which they have never contributed a single penny.
Presumably you have a non-paywalled source for that?

Quote:
But there are doing. That's a fact (as regards the wider Europe, specifically Germany). In the UK we've been a bit more discriminatory about who we let in and where they come from, hence the problem is nowhere near as pronounced.
I do hope you're not trying to extrapolate the situation in the whole of Europe from Germany's experience, because to do so would be monumentally ill-advised. Germany took in over 700,000 asylum seekers in 2016, whereas the likes of Spain, the UK, France, and Italy (in ascending order) admitted between 20,000 and 170,000.

As already noted, asylum seekers cannot work whilst their claims are being processed, so complaining that they're living on the benefits they get specifically because they're not working is a bit silly.

Quote:
Also, that's a strange thing to say. If you believe that these people are fleeing for their lives (i.e. are genuine refugees) then are you saying that free housing, free health care, free education, weekly benefits and a safe environment is not worth bothering with?
No, I am saying that living on benefits is crap, and not a route to enrichment.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 2nd January 2019 at 09:24 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:36 AM   #68
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Presumably you have a non-paywalled source for that?
That was for Germany, as they have taken in the most immigrants. The relevant section (as of May 2018) is this:

Originally Posted by ARTICLE
One in four refugees is now officially registered as having a job, a significant improvement from the numbers one year ago.
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I do hope you're not trying to extrapolate the situation in the whole of Europe from Germany's experience, because to do so would be monumentally ill-advised. Germany took in over 700,000 asylum seekers in 2016, whereas the likes of Spain, the UK, France, and Italy (in ascending order) admitted between 20,000 and 170,000.
It depends what you mean by 'extrapolate'. Obviously it is logical, when assessing the impact of taking in large numbers of immigrants, to look to the country that has actually done this, and the best example is Germany.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
As already noted, asylum seekers cannot work whilst their claims are being processed, so complaining that they're living on the benefits they get specifically because they're not working is a bit silly.
Regardless of why they're not working, they're still not working, and are still a massive drain on resource. But that's not my chief objection. Countries should take in refugees, and should take a hit, but you know as well as I do that these young men who flock to Europe in their millions, and who cross multiple safe countries to get to the one that suits them best are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Don't forget that every economic migrant, in theory, takes the place of a refugee.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, I am saying that living on benefits is crap, and not a route to enrichment.
Crap compared to death? Or do you believe that the majority of these people are not fleeing death at all? I think you'll find that's your Western privilege talking. Free housing, free education, free healthcare, money paid weekly and a safe, stable environment is not crap compared to the options available in many other countries. In fact, it's not crap at all, which is why so many native Britons avail themselves of the option.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 10:43 AM   #69
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,123
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why use per capita and not square kilometers or in the case of Oz because so much land is arid, how much the land and water can support?
Because national economies of scale are not based on land area, they are based on population.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 11:43 AM   #70
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,713
Originally Posted by baron View Post
.....

I advocate taking the legal route of asylum application. I thought you'd be all for that. It doesn't bode well for the future integration and contribution of an individual if the very first thing he does on foreign soil is break the law. Only yesterday a trawler was stolen from a French harbour, although fortunately it was turned back before it crossed into British waters. It was full of refugees. There's no reason why an individual can't take a plane and claim asylum legally. Of course, they might not have a passport or identification, but that's mostly because they're 30 and want to pass themselves off as a 15 year old to lubricate the acceptance process at the other end.
Many people who need to claim asylum just need to get out of their home country asap. Many cannot afford to fly direct and/or afford or have time or opportunity to get a passport and/or wait for visas needed to make their arrival in the UK legal. Many asylum seekers by default have to arrive in the UK illegally.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:00 PM   #71
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It depends what you mean by 'extrapolate'. Obviously it is logical, when assessing the impact of taking in large numbers of immigrants, to look to the country that has actually done this, and the best example is Germany.
It's not "logical" at all. More than 700,000 arriving in one country in a short space of time are going to take a lot longer find jobs than 170,000 or fewer in other countries.

Quote:
Regardless of why they're not working, they're still not working, and are still a massive drain on resource.
Define "massive drain." Asylum applications of 32,733 in 2015 and 30,747 in 2016, and fewer in each of the previous ten years are relatively low numbers in the grand scheme of government spending.

Quote:
But that's not my chief objection. Countries should take in refugees, and should take a hit, but you know as well as I do that these young men who flock to Europe in their millions, and who cross multiple safe countries to get to the one that suits them best are not refugees, they are economic migrants.
Hundreds of thousands, certainly, but "millions" is clearly an exaggeration, even if we accept the age-sex profile you claim. Between 2013 and 2015, of 102,102 asylum applicants, only 42,995 (42%) men aged 18-34 (31% of the total were female).

Quote:
Don't forget that every economic migrant, in theory, takes the place of a refugee.
But in practice? We know that the UK is taking some asylum seekers directly from camps in the Middle East, so clearly they take precedence.

Quote:
Crap compared to death? Or do you believe that the majority of these people are not fleeing death at all? I think you'll find that's your Western privilege talking. Free housing, free education, free healthcare, money paid weekly and a safe, stable environment is not crap compared to the options available in many other countries. In fact, it's not crap at all, which is why so many native Britons avail themselves of the option.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that they are mostly economic migrants in one breath, and in the next suggest that the pittance of life on benefits is better than the risk of death in their home countries. Are they seeking enrichment or fleeing danger?

Last edited by Information Analyst; 2nd January 2019 at 12:22 PM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:33 PM   #72
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,929
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Australia is not a good analogy as it is next door to the huge Asian continent. The UK is not.
Wow. "Next door", eh? Get a map and a ruler! Our nearest neighbouring country is Papua New Guinea at about 50kms, with whom we have no issues re refugees. Next nearest will be Timor Leste, at about 600kms. The nearest "Asian continent" starts at Singapore, at over 3000 kms from Darwin. Are you thinking of Indonesia? It's a series of islands in between those two distances.

Just to give you a comparison, Lebanon is roughly the same distance from London as Singapore is from Darwin.



Quote:
Bear in mind Australia as we know it today originated as a plan to send British stock to the colonies, so it being 'white' is a pure accident of history and confers no inherent right to claim ownership of it.
No, it was a plan to dump Britain's political and economic oppressed. In effect, modern Australia was founded by political and economic refugees forced there against their will who arrived in boats. They didn't have passports either.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:55 PM   #73
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's not "logical" at all. More than 700,000 arriving in one country in a short space of time are going to take a lot longer find jobs than 170,000 or fewer in other countries.
And that demonstrates what? That you cannot and should not just take in everybody who turns up on your doorstep. Which is my point.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Define "massive drain." Asylum applications of 32,733 in 2015 and 30,747 in 2016, and fewer in each of the previous ten years are relatively low numbers in the grand scheme of government spending.
I'm talking generally, not specifically about the UK.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Hundreds of thousands, certainly, but "millions" is clearly an exaggeration, even if we accept the age-sex profile you claim. Between 2013 and 2015, of 102,102 asylum applicants, only 42,995 (42%) men aged 18-34 (31% of the total were female).
I specifically said those who "...flock to Europe in their millions." Greece received a million in a one year alone (2015).

As to the figures, I assume those are for the UK. I'm not sure why you cited them as despite the UK having a better selection method than many other European countries, they illustrate my point. Around 11 - 20% of a population are males aged 18 to 34, yet 42% of applicants fit the bill.

This is typical of the overall situation:

Originally Posted by Pew
Among all asylum seekers in 2015, about two-in-ten (19%) were male minors (0 to 17 years of age), compared with one-in-ten who were female minors. And while about four-in-ten (42%) asylum seekers were young adult males (18 to 34 years of age) in 2015, just about one-in-ten (11%) were young adult females in the same age bracket.

These age and gender patterns are largely consistent across some of the largest asylum seeker groups, including those from Syria, Iraq, Iran and Somalia.
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
But in practice? We know that the UK is taking some asylum seekers directly from camps in the Middle East, so clearly they take precedence.
Yes, and that's how it should be done. Identify those with the most need and deal with them. Young, fit men who travel across Europe simply for economic benefit should not be considered at all. If you remember, when this influx began in earnest it was called the Syrian refugee crisis. That's why accommodation of immigrants gained so much support. When it was revealed that the majority of immigrants didn't even come from Syria then the word 'Syrian' was quietly dropped.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that they are mostly economic migrants in one breath, and in the next suggest that the pittance of life on benefits is better than the risk of death in their home countries. Are they seeking enrichment or fleeing danger?
That's what I was asking you. If, as you say, no immigrant would choose a life on benefits because it's crap then you either think it's so crap it's literally worse than death, or you admit that the immigrant isn't fleeing a situation that's worse than a life on benefits.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 02:13 PM   #74
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I specifically said those who "...flock to Europe in their millions." Greece received a million in a one year alone (2015).
You actually said: "these young men who flock to Europe in their millions."

As to the figures, I assume those are for the UK. I'm not sure why you cited them as despite the UK having a better selection method than many other European countries, they illustrate my point. Around 11 - 20% of a population are males aged 18 to 34, yet 42% of applicants fit the bill.[/quote]
So between twice and four times as many as would be expected on a purely random population sample. Still doesn't make the majority, and - as has been suggested countless time here previously - there are very obvious reasons why they are over-represented.

Quote:
That's what I was asking you. If, as you say, no immigrant would choose a life on benefits because it's crap then you either think it's so crap it's literally worse than death, or you admit that the immigrant isn't fleeing a situation that's worse than a life on benefits.
Except I didn't say that at all. I disputed your claim that (economic) migrants are primarily coming to claim benefits, rather than to work. I don't have a problem recognising that a significant minority of asylum seekers are really economic migrants, not least because of the proportion of rejected asylum claims. That still leave a majority of genuine claimants.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 02:38 PM   #75
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
You actually said: "these young men who flock to Europe in their millions."
They have. In the ten years since 2008 Europe has received over five million migrants. Taking the low figure of 40% of these being young males, that's a total of two million.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
So between twice and four times as many as would be expected on a purely random population sample. Still doesn't make the majority, and - as has been suggested countless time here previously - there are very obvious reasons why they are over-represented.
The most obvious reason, however, doesn't tend to be entertained.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Except I didn't say that at all. I disputed your claim that (economic) migrants are primarily coming to claim benefits, rather than to work.
I believe I said that the majority are claiming benefits, that figure being 75% in Germany (down from 90% in 2016 IIRC).

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I don't have a problem recognising that a significant minority of asylum seekers are really economic migrants, not least because of the proportion of rejected asylum claims. That still leave a majority of genuine claimants.
Where do you get that from? From your own document -

Originally Posted by Stats
The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. After that, the percentage of applicants refused at initial decision fell to 59% in 2014, before increasing to 66% in 2016.
Even factoring in the acceptances on appeal, that's still a significant majority. I have no problem with refugees, assuming the influx is properly managed, but the majority are simply chancers.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:08 PM   #76
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
This is apparently a migrant crisis for the UK, for which the Home Secretary has had to cut short his Christmas holidays to deal with;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46714553

"More than 220 people have attempted the crossing in small boats since November."

Yes, a whole 220 people in 7 weeks, or about 32 people a week. In once case, 6 Iranian men arrived at once! Apparently there is "'Grave concern'.

Apparently this massive uncontrollable fearful influx of immigrants is due to the unseasonably calm weather in the English Channel.

Congratulations on living where most people in the world don't want to.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 05:59 AM   #77
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,062
Originally Posted by baron View Post
They have. In the ten years since 2008 Europe has received over five million migrants. Taking the low figure of 40% of these being young males, that's a total of two million.
Except by your own admission, you'd expect 11-20% as part of true population reflection, meaning that only 20-29% are additional: I.e. 550,000 to 1,000,000.

Quote:
I believe I said that the majority are claiming benefits, that figure being 75% in Germany (down from 90% in 2016 IIRC).
And it's already been pointed out to you why Germany is exceptional, and ot representative.

Quote:
Where do you get that from? From your own document -

Originally Posted by Stats
The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. After that, the percentage of applicants refused at initial decision fell to 59% in 2014, before increasing to 66% in 2016.
Even factoring in the acceptances on appeal, that's still a significant majority. I have no problem with refugees, assuming the influx is properly managed, but the majority are simply chancers.
Eventually around half of claims are allowed (47% in the five years 2011-2015; range 44.2% to 53.4%). I would consider that - especially in light of the declared "hostile environment" policy - more genuine claims are refused than vice versa. That would mean that the majority of claims are genuine, whether they're recognised as such or not.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 3rd January 2019 at 06:23 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 06:46 AM   #78
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,856
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
This is apparently a migrant crisis for the UK, for which the Home Secretary has had to cut short his Christmas holidays to deal with;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46714553

"More than 220 people have attempted the crossing in small boats since November."

Yes, a whole 220 people in 7 weeks, or about 32 people a week. In once case, 6 Iranian men arrived at once! Apparently there is "'Grave concern'.

Apparently this massive uncontrollable fearful influx of immigrants is due to the unseasonably calm weather in the English Channel.


It isn’t really to do with the migrants themselves. Grayling wants the Home Office to track down the people bringing them in so he can offer them a contract to bring in freight after Brexit.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 07:44 AM   #79
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,801
Royal Navy has been asked for assistance.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:23 AM   #80
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Except by your own admission, you'd expect 11-20% as part of true population reflection, meaning that only 20-29% are additional: I.e. 550,000 to 1,000,000.
I didn't mention additional, I said two million young men.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
And it's already been pointed out to you why Germany is exceptional, and ot representative.
And I disagree. Not only is it not exceptional in terms of demonstrating the results of allowing mass immigration, it's the gold standard of examples, followed closely by Sweden.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Eventually around half of claims are allowed (47% in the five years 2011-2015; range 44.2% to 53.4%). I would consider that - especially in light of the declared "hostile environment" policy - more genuine claims are refused than vice versa. That would mean that the majority of claims are genuine, whether they're recognised as such or not.
That's speculation. Also, you're interpreting the rhetoric of 'hostile environment' to mean 'breaking international law', which it absolutely does not mean but which is what it would mean if refugees were refused entry. I could speculate the opposite. Best stick to the figures, which show that more claims were rejected than accepted.

Also, we have this:

Quote:
Most applications for asylum are made by those already in the country (90% of applications) rather than by people at their time of arriving in the UK at a port. Applicants tend to be young and male.
We know the last part but the first part casts doubt on the alleged altruistic motives of these thousands of young men. They aren't in so much danger that they claim asylum as soon as they can, but hey, they kind of like it here so wouldn't it be nice if they could stay...

Last edited by baron; 3rd January 2019 at 08:25 AM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.