France begins to clear 'Jungle' camp

[paulpablo]

They are in for a treat if they ever manage to reach Britain then.

Now there's something to be proud of!

---

Isn't the point of illegal immigration to aggressively try to get into a place you're not legally welcome to be?

If they were welcome in the UK but not in France then I imagine there'd be no problem and the French would just say cool, go to Britain, they want you there.

Well, I think immigrants, legal or not, decide on this or that country for one or more of several reasons, some of which SC has already laid out.

As.for why France doesn't simply pass them along, do they have any obligations through the EU to preventing it to another EU country?

Yeh but I would think it's because that other EU country doesn't welcome them there.  If they weren't welcome in France and were welcome in Britain that would solve Frances problems.  They wouldn't be obligated to stop them, spend money on policing and patrolling the boarder, they'd pass them right on through to Britain in a hurry.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Perhaps. I don't pretend to know much about Continental politics or mores.

I do think that if you help break a country you should help the refugees from that calamity, and UK and France each own a share of the debacles in Iraq, Libya, and Syria -- albeit much smaller than my own country which has itself failed miserably in shouldering its own burden of refugees from those nations.

---

<sigh>

Whatever, Thump.

What do you want me to say? No matter how I explain my reasoning, you will remain wedded to your views, views which I find small-hearted and sad.

[paulpablo]

Perhaps. I don't pretend to know much about Continental politics or mores.

I do think that if you help break a country you should help the refugees from that calamity, and UK and France each own a share of the debacles in Iraq, Libya, and Syria -- albeit much smaller than my own country which has itself failed miserably in shouldering its own burden of refugees from those nations.

---

Whatever, Thump.

What do you want me to say? No matter how I explain my reasoning, you will remain wedded to your views, views which I find small-hearted and sad.

I'm not talking about what should or shouldn't be done.

You said they don't want to be in France because they're not welcome there.  The place where they want to go is the UK.  I'm saying they're pretty much not welcome in the UK either.  In the sense that legally they're not welcome here by laws put in place by the people who run the country.

So you're saying these illegal immigrants wouldn't want to stay somewhere they're not welcome, I'm saying isn't the whole point of what they're doing to try and aggressively head towards a place where they're not welcome, a place where the powers that be will try and prevent them from entering.

[Joods]

Now there's something to be proud of!

I believe that we should accept a limited number of unaccompanied child refugees but they must pass age verification checks, integrate into the local culture and learn the language.

Bolding mine.

So what you're suggesting is that parents willingly just let their children be separated (ie: torn apart) from them. You'd be okay with a five year old or a three year old being unaccompanied by their parents, going into a country where they know no one, don't speak the language, are terrified and alone, yet forced to learn the local culture and language, all without the safety and comfort of their parents?

And how exactly would a child be able to pass an age verification check? A birth certificate? A photo ID? You'd be okay with trusting a young child to not only manage to not lose an important document like a birth certificate, but expect them to know what that is and be able to go through such verification checks without the comfort and safety net of their mother or father? Furthermore, what is this age cut-off, you suggest? What age does should it start and what about all of the children that fall outside of any supposed age range? How about their need for a safe place to be? What of those refugees and their parents?


Because if that's not what you're saying, how about you elaborate so that we can understand.

[paulpablo]

I believe that we should accept a limited number of unaccompanied child refugees but they must pass age verification checks, integrate into the local culture and learn the language.

Bolding mine.

So what you're suggesting is that parents willingly just let their children be separated (ie: torn apart) from them. You'd be okay with a five year old or a three year old being unaccompanied by their parents, going into a country where they know no one, don't speak the language, are terrified and alone, yet forced to learn the local culture and language, all without the safety and comfort of their parents?

And how exactly would a child be able to pass an age verification check? A birth certificate? A photo ID? You'd be okay with trusting a young child to not only manage to not lose an important document like a birth certificate, but expect them to know what that is and be able to go through such verification checks without the comfort and safety net of their mother or father? Furthermore, what is this age cut-off, you suggest? What age does should it start and what about all of the children that fall outside of any supposed age range? How about their need for a safe place to be? What of those refugees and their parents?


Because if that's not what you're saying, how about you elaborate so that we can understand.

I'd imagine that she's saying children who lost their parents in conflict and so on rather than yoinking a child out of the grasping hands of their crying parents.

That's just my estimation.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I don't believe I've ever heard the sentiment 'we should look out for our own' followed by anything that could remove it from the realm of vague parrotism.

[Joods]

Bolding mine.

So what you're suggesting is that parents willingly just let their children be separated (ie: torn apart) from them. You'd be okay with a five year old or a three year old being unaccompanied by their parents, going into a country where they know no one, don't speak the language, are terrified and alone, yet forced to learn the local culture and language, all without the safety and comfort of their parents?

And how exactly would a child be able to pass an age verification check? A birth certificate? A photo ID? You'd be okay with trusting a young child to not only manage to not lose an important document like a birth certificate, but expect them to know what that is and be able to go through such verification checks without the comfort and safety net of their mother or father? Furthermore, what is this age cut-off, you suggest? What age does should it start and what about all of the children that fall outside of any supposed age range? How about their need for a safe place to be? What of those refugees and their parents?


Because if that's not what you're saying, how about you elaborate so that we can understand.

I'd imagine that she's saying children who lost their parents in conflict and so on rather than yoinking a child out of the grasping hands of their crying parents.

That's just my estimation.

Perhaps. But the amount of disdain and hate that she expresses here, I wouldn't be surprised if she did mean it the way I think she does.

[Jesster]

These threads have definitely started to resemble opposite-wing Min threads.

[GUBU]

I believe that we should accept a limited number of unaccompanied child refugees but they must pass age verification checks, integrate into the local culture and learn the language.

In the end, we should be doing more to help our own.

Your demands that people integrate into the culture despite never missing an opportunity to spew blind hatred at them is pretty counter intuitive.

And I'm sure that as Bella is so insistent that minorities conform to the dominant culture that she speaks in the clipped tones of the BBC English, shouted for the Sassanach back in November and despises Irn Bru. Anything else would be hypocritical.

[Regina]

I do think it's a reasonable thing to suggest immigrants should be spread out. A few thousand here, some there, some stay in France, some come here, some go to Italy, some to Germany. I think the burden of the immigrant crisis should be shared between all the countries capable of taking some in, taking a proportional amount to the native population each. There is a limit on how many one place can take.

You can't have a situation where you just accept tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, put them in one place, and expect them to be absorbed by the general population. That doesn't work, you just end up with ghetto-ised communities and minority group politics, who do inevitably end up being handed over to reactionary parasitical Islamists who radicalise people. Absolutely nobody wins from that, which is why I don't get people (not really anyone here, it's a general point) throwing "integration" around like it's such a dirty word.

Having said that, an antagonistic attitude to immigrants themselves doesn't help. These are people (most of them anyway) fleeing from corruption and theocracy, they want to be here, they want to live in a country where they can enjoy freedom we take for granted. People are refusing to see that narrative though, they just see them as one thing - "Muslims." - here to fuck things up. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, when you give legitimacy to the real Islamists among them by treating that mindset like it's authentic.