The waiting line in and around Calais is actually a good case in point. Not one of those people are refugee's, repeat not a single one of them. If they were it is the responsibility of the first safe country they come to to help them. They are therefore economic migrants looking for a better life. Nothing wrong with that ambition but by the same token its not Britains responsibility to provide said better life. Edit, sorry but i just noticed that these very same points above were made earlier. Once everyone in Britain is safe, housed, healthy and gainfully employed then we can look to help others.
No apology for cut & pasting this from Wiki. It's as I understood it anyway and is supported elsewhere...so much for "Old traditions" eh ? British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom From 1 January 1983, a child born in the UK to a parent who is a British citizen or 'settled' in the UK is automatically a British citizen by birth. Only one parent needs to meet this requirement. "Settled" status usually means the parent is resident in the UK and has the right of abode, or holds Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), or is the citizen of an EU/EEA country and has permanent residence, or otherwise unrestricted by immigration laws to remain in the UK.[4] Irish citizens in the UK are deemed settled for this purpose. Special rules exist for cases where a parent of a child is a citizen of a European Union or European Economic Area member state, or Switzerland. The law in this respect was changed on 2 October 2000 and 30 April 2006. See below for details. For children born before 1 July 2006, if only the father meets this requirement the parents must be married. Marriage subsequent to the birth is normally enough to confer British citizenship from that point. Where the father is not married to the mother, the Home Office usually registers the child as British provided an application is made and the child would have been British otherwise. The child must be under 18 on the date of application. Where a parent subsequently acquires British citizenship or "settled" status, the child can be registered as British provided he or she is aged under 18. If the child lives in the UK until age 10 there is a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen. The immigration status of the child and his/her parents is irrelevant. Special provisions may apply for the child to acquire British citizenship if a parent is a British Overseas citizen or British subject, or if the child is stateless. Even if a child born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983 does not acquire British citizenship, he/she does not require a visa (leave to enter or remain) to live in the UK.[5] However, he/she is subject to immigration control and needs to obtain leave to enter if he/she leaves the UK and seeks re-admission, or leave to remain where permission is sought for the child to be allowed to stay in the UK.[6] Before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality irrespective of the status of parents, with an exception only for children of diplomats and enemy aliens. This exception did not apply to most visiting forces, so, in general, children born in the UK before 1983 to visiting military personnel (e.g. US forces stationed in the UK) are British citizens.
Of course you don't just do everything your ally would like. Of course you have to put your own country's interests first. Ever since 7 December 1941 the American alliance has been the principal plank of Britain's defence policy, and it has been very much in Britain's interest to maintain that relationship. This is not always easy, and involves compromises and commitments - as alliances always do. The point I was making was that even such a strong and enduring alliance has its critics, and it is not inconceivable it might be broken on the British side at some point in the future. That being so, your criticisms of the fragility of other alliances, and the untrustworthy nature of those countries, should be put into perspective. Ultimately any alliance can end, any treaty can be repudiated, and any promise can be broken. It's a bit like a marriage - you have to work on it, not just take it for granted.
Indeed. I just suspect that it would be unlikely for the British to play a double game with the Americans, whereas for other "allies" it seems that their allegiance is only very partial. I don't think that the relationship that Pakistan or Turkey has with the US is very similar to our own.
Many of the millions of people who have fled from Syria entered the first safe country they came to, namely Jordan. Treated as refugees they were placed in vast camps in Jordan. Jordan is a small country with limited resources, and it is overwhelmed by vastly more refugees than it can cope with. There are not enough jobs, not enough homes, not enough money, not enough food, not even enough water. Your opinion seems to be (Is it?) that all these problems are Jordan's sole responsibility, and that all other countries (including Britain) can wash their hands and simply ignore the whole problem. So is it your view that the refugees are supposed to stay where they are until they are all dead? Or go back to Syria to be killed there? If not, what do you think they ought to do?
I think the men ought to fight to protect their homes. Pete, what about Turkey/Egypt/Iraq/Saudi Arabia and Iran? All islamic countries with plenty of space available and very similar to Syria.
Pakistan has had an alliance with China for decades. It relationship with USA is temporary and of a limited nature, as both sides are well aware. Its membership of the Commonwealth has been purely nominal, and liable to be terminated or suspended at any time (as in 1999-2004). Turkey has been a member of NATO for decades. Its relationship with USA is long-standing, and covers military and economic matters. Its attempt to join the EU has been stalled for decades, and now looks nlikely ever to be allowed. For Turkey to turn away from the West would be a momentous change - but it seems to be getting ever more likely. Well that's my opinion.
The point under discussion was "... the first safe country they came to". It was argued that it is the first safe country, and only that country, which has responsibility for refugees. My point was that this approach is unrealistic; refugees moving on to other countries is virtually unavoidable. It seems that you agree with me, so thanks for that.
Not at all. Not everyone that is waiting in Calais comes from Syria, perhaps you believe they do. I stand by what i said.
So you are unable or unwilling to answer any of the questions I posed. Instead you prefer to make up an absurd straw man. That makes it clear enough where you stand. Fine.
The Israelis do just that in Palestine. I say this as a matter of fact rather than condoning it in any way.
Hi all,apart from bombing the hell out of Isis and killing a lot of innocent Syrian men,women and children while doing it has anyone got any realistic thoughts on how the "Isis problem" can be resolved? Or is it just a matter of time before a major UK event (more than likely in London?) is hit by suicide bombers and AK47 armed terrorists? We do not seem to have anyone in our foreign office close to being capable of some kind of plan
The Israelis seem to do just about what they want as they know the USA will always watch their back.I was at school (long long time ago!) with two Israeli twin brothers and they always said that after the murder and persecution they suffered at the hands of the Nazis they had been bought up to never take any shit from any person ever! The pair of them were the two shortest kids in my year and were smaller than most of the year below as well - but getting in the boxing ring with either was the worst day of your life! Proper guys though and always shook your hand and congratulated you after they had smashed you apart for 3 x 1 minute rounds!
I think the reason that good plans are thin on the ground is that it's really difficult to think up a good one. It's all bound up in geopolitics, mad sects, murderous dictators, tribes and disaffected citizens. Another thing I have learnt over time - you can't reason with nutty people; they are impervious to argument. That means that there is nothing you can say to Al-Baghdadi which will make him into a reasonable human being, and not a great deal you can say to Assad ditto. When you prefer to see your country be reduced to rubble rather than give up power, you clearly aren't someone very open to reason. So, what's the answer? For all the propaganda, ISIS is still very much a second-rate rag-tag army which wouldn't last long if the West, and or Russia, got serious. They don't have the manpower, the aviation or the weapons. So if there was a concerted will to wipe it out, you could be rid very quickly. But it wouldn't be cost free in terms of lives. Then the next problem - what do you put in its place? Iraq is hopelessly divided now between Sunni and Shia and the government has no credibility. There is no desire to power share or have a genuine democracy. What is Syria going to look like? You can't just hand it over to Assad again. As for terrorism at home, I suspect there will always be some and it could be a lot worse. What happens if the beardies get hold of a dirty bomb? A dozen blokes with AK47s are going to seem like a picnic compared to that. Fundamentalist Islam needs stamping out in the West. That will mean a loss of civil liberties, but we don't seem to notice to what extent they have already been eroded: You can't take a pot of Marmite on a plane (I know - I've tried) There is CCTV everywhere. All your electronic communications are read. You are tracked everywhere via your mobile phone So next up - you won't be able to say what you think. This you will have to give up so that raving Imams can be locked up or deported. In practice, it will be like the CCTV. You won't really notice it on a day-to-day basis, but nonetheless, you will have lost a little more freedom. There just is no easy answer. There isn't even a cost-free or relatively simple answer. This is why just sending more jets to Syria isn't going to solve anything much at all.
Like your reasoning- I remember an interview with an American sailor who was a n antiaircraft gunner on a flattop in WW2 and the reporter asked him what scared him most about fighting the Japanese? He said the Kamikaze piloted planes and the thought that a young fit kid would willingly lay down his life for country and emperor.You can't defend against an enemy who gladly volunteers to strap a large explosive device to his or her body and walk into a crowd and pull the pin
More freedoms given away now is a waste of time just to calm you down. Kids can hack giants and stay mostly hidden. When giants eventually find kids one always brakes and that is how they get the gang (recent talk talk hack). Unlikely to happen with Jihadi John mates.
I can't speak for all European countries armed forces obviously but from my experience over 30 years ago when we were finally told we were going to war - the very thing we had been trained to perfection for,it didn't seem real even when you were on the boat with all the flag waving and land of hope and glory pomp.We were told the world was watching us and we were doing it for Queen and country - make them proud and don't let the regiment down! In reality when it finally dawns on you that you are miles from home,your equipment and rifle isn't cracked up to what you've been told and the opposition isn't Tonga it's the bloody all blacks all the queen and country bollox goes out the window! It ends up you are there for your mates in your squad,even the bastards you don't even like - but you will fight alongside them,protect them,save them,comfort them,fire them up when they freeze and can't move.Sounds corny but "Band of Brothers" is the best description- you will die for any one of them but not for a cause,country or Queen! Isis are not wired up the same way
Pete you only seem to have asked one question actually, spun it out for effect of course to labour the point but hey ho. The Syrian refugees are not only in camps in Jordan. There is probably plenty Britain can do to help the countries providing safe haven, they are already in fact. Can we do more ? Probably. Should we do more? Probably. Should we redefine the meaning of refugee to suit you, probably not. Should we house, feed, educate and administer health care ahead of needy britains ? probably not.
