Dave B wrote:Much though I sincerely regret it I had to agree with a point made by Tory type Adam Holloway.
He, effectively, said that the current EU "policy" on migration is immoral. At the moment there is nothing to stop the migrants paying huge sums on a chance thst they will get a welcome somewhere in Europe. This keeps the much hated traffickers in (big) budiness, places most of them at risk to their lives and does not ensure that they will even be granted refugee status and a permit to reside.
It also ensures a great deal of money spent in emergency measures at the various borders, money that, properly used, could do better work.
A system of "filtering" employed as close to those countries where lives are at risk (not for economic migrants) with legitimate transport at reasonable cost (free if absolutely necessary) would save lives.
The corrolary must be that all non-EU migrants must undergo this process with no admission at all for those who do not.
Holloway's "immoral" aspect was to leave tge gates open, thus encouraging an almost continuous stream of migrants travelling in hope, but at risk to their lives.
I will also reiterate that even if tge ME conflicts stopped soon economic pressures, climate change etc. will ensure a continuing supply of people seeking a "better life". Europe's capacity to absorb dependant (initially at least) immigrants is not infinite. The migration problem must be viewed and planned over periods of not less than ten years, better 30 or more.
this is pretty disingenuous and confused, and the "leaving the gates open" argument has already been proven false by the brave decision of German Chancellor Merkel to take on large numbers of refugees. Thundril has already pointed out that the traffickers would be bypassed if there was a just system of processing and transporting refugees from the crisis countries to Europe, and I challenge you to claim that someone who has braved the present dangerous chaos cannot be in some sense a refugee; traffickers are a symptom rather than the cause of the migrant problem. As for the climate change problem, please do not use this as an argument for restricting asylum seekers; instead, vote for parties which are committed to ending this threat!
Could have been better structured.
Germany's decision to allow a large number of refugees in does not disprove the "open gate" theory, mrrely demonstrates that one country does not seem to be concerhed about it.
Or are they not? There seems to be a degree of second thinking going on in that region due to a larger number of refugees than was expected . . .
I also said that a system for processing, or perhaps pre-processing, migrants was needed - before they pay loads of money to traffickers and risk their lives. You seem to agree.
Any person fleeing a real danger to their life is a genuine refugee. Someone who pays out a lot of money and then risks their life on the chance they might make even more (disposable income) in Europe might seem a bit silly. In between there are those who want a better standard of life, better healthcare, better education for their kids etc. Sensible ambitions, but all three groups are "competing" since even the whole of Europe must have a limit to how many they can absorb per year.
Germany says that the immigrants are good for their economy, yet, admittedly about 30 years ago they had problems with the Turkish "guest workers"
who could not integrate fully. That may have been partly due to prejudice, but that's another potential problem.
Perhaps I am wrong but you seem to be veiwing what will probably be a long term problem as a short term one.
There is still the moral question as to whether it is good to indicate that all migrants will be let in, thus encouraging more people to take the risk.
We will have to disagree on this I fear.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."