• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
RJT1979

"I've now got a mortgage, a house, a car. "We're not trouble for people."

Recommended Posts

@dgul while I agree with your post mostly, it's easy to understand why they don't go back to Kuwait/Syria. No need to go there, just fire up Google Streetview or other places online to see what it's like; that's your answer.

I'm not going to start laying into them with the trite arguments about benefits and healthcare, while these are true, the reason for me is obvious - nobody wants to live in a shithole if invited to live elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spunko said:

@dgul while I agree with your post mostly, it's easy to understand why they don't go back to Kuwait/Syria. No need to go there, just fire up Google Streetview or other places online to see what it's like; that's your answer.

Sure.  Of course they don't want to go back.  But by not going back they're actively making it more difficult for the country to recover.  They have a personal responsibility to stay, but there is also a social responsibility to return.  Why is the standard position that the individual wins in these cases?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgul said:

Sure.  Of course they don't want to go back.  But by not going back they're actively making it more difficult for the country to recover.  They have a personal responsibility to stay, but there is also a social responsibility to return.  Why is the standard position that the individual wins in these cases?  

Perhaps they shirk personal responsibility only after mixing with the native Brits, it's contagious... Only joking, kind of,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spunko said:

Perhaps they shirk personal responsibility only after mixing with the native Brits, it's contagious... Only joking, kind of,

They are being sensible.  Anyone would do the same.  But is it right 'for the world'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, spunko said:

@dgul while I agree with your post mostly, it's easy to understand why they don't go back to Kuwait/Syria. No need to go there, just fire up Google Streetview or other places online to see what it's like; that's your answer.

I'm not going to start laying into them with the trite arguments about benefits and healthcare, while these are true, the reason for me is obvious - nobody wants to live in a shithole if invited to live elsewhere.

When all the people able to leave leave, then the people left behind have so little healthy, fit, young, financially upward people left that they have been abandoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tdog said:

By the way the women dress its clear they will never fit into British culture and they clearly are not trying.

Ghani with his family

Ghani with his family

I don't think they should be expected 'to fit in'.  I think we should support their culture in their exile.   I'd go so far as to support (financially) educating their youth in their language and customs.  i'd also support the education of them and their young in useful skills, including business and politics (ie, more than just building houses and infrastructure), so that they can be best able to support their country on their return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spunko said:

@dgul while I agree with your post mostly, it's easy to understand why they don't go back to Kuwait/Syria. No need to go there, just fire up Google Streetview or other places online to see what it's like; that's your answer.

I'm not going to start laying into them with the trite arguments about benefits and healthcare, while these are true, the reason for me is obvious - nobody wants to live in a shithole if invited to live elsewhere.

In my book they actually qualify as refugees. I think some Western countries have made Syria even shittier than it used to be.

Anyway what about those French Hugenots who came here at the end of the 18th century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is another of the problems that they won't go back to redevelop their nation because the bankers won't lend except to their governments, mainly.  Then government lending tends to go astray for some reason.

Don't misunderstand - I think real refugees and real asylum seekers should definitely return when it's safe to do so.  

The economic migrants are a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twocents said:

Is another of the problems that they won't go back to redevelop their nation because the bankers won't lend except to their governments, mainly.  Then government lending tends to go astray for some reason.

Don't misunderstand - I think real refugees and real asylum seekers should definitely return when it's safe to do so.  

The economic migrants are a different matter.

I agree.  I'd suggest that all refugees are allowed to take jobs, with the proviso that their NI is put to one side (including employer's), and when it is time to return this is fed back to the emigrating refugee as support.  I'd suggest that there would be an additional government support to the individual -- perhaps matched to the NI contribution.

[I'd much rather this than support all those crazy quangos that actually end up paying their staff loads to go out and use poor countries prostitutes]

2 hours ago, Tdog said:

We cant afford that.

They should be picking a side and fighting to save their nation, if they dont have the courage to do that they should go to an Islamic nation in the region.

Whilst these people may be all lovely and cuddly their offspring will predominantly turn out to be British hating filth like 2nd generation immigrants seem to do.

Well, there's clearly a discussion to be had and a country-wide 'happy medium' to be developed.  I'd add that my suggestion (paying to support their culture) would probably end up as cheaper than the traditional welfare forever plus crazy third-sector funding to support the recovering countries.

[I'd also say that your 'fighting the enemy' is all very good for young men, but there's more to refugees than that (although I can see why you'd think it).  There has to be compassion, albeit with controls to stop being taken advantage of]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dgul said:

 

[The first guy is actually an intriguing case.  He's Kuwaiti.  Of course he should flee Kuwait when Saddam invaded.  Of course he should flee Syria when the bombs start flying.  But why didn't he return to Kuwait -- it is a safe, rich country.  Of course, I have a feeling that I know why -- because Kuwait doesn't bestow citizenship on those that are simply born and raised there, and the don't have a resettlement programme for Syrians.  the So-Called BBC doesn't mention this sort of thing, as it might start to suggest that the UK is a little unusual in it's generosity in these matters]

 

I saw that as well. I'd guess he's Palestinian and his family moved to Kuwait to work.  Kuwaitis get something like £20k a year from their government. Kuwaitis simply don't give up their citizenship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dgul said:

I don't think they should be expected 'to fit in'.  I think we should support their culture in their exile.   I'd go so far as to support (financially) educating their youth in their language and customs.  i'd also support the education of them and their young in useful skills, including business and politics (ie, more than just building houses and infrastructure), so that they can be best able to support their country on their return.

In their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrPin said:

In my book they actually qualify as refugees. I think some Western countries have made Syria even shittier than it used to be.

Anyway what about those French Hugenots who came here at the end of the 18th century?

In WW2 did the Middle East/ Africa/ Asia give asylum to many europeans? There has to come a point where we don't give charity to people that wouldn't give us charity....

After a few generations the Huguenots married Brits and they ceased being French... Muslims quite simply don't marry non Muslims. It's hard to see them ever integrating into British life....

I'm from Glasgow and we've obviously had a history of sectarian violence. However that's fading out as Catholics and Protestants marry each other. You think someone whose mum is Catholic and dad is Protestant gives much of a fuck of someone is Catholic or Protestant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

In their country.

If there's something that really pisses me off it is when a migrant 18 year old (say) starts moaning about how they've made their life here (over 10 years or whatever) and it isn't fair to go back to their shithole.  They don't speak the language, they don't understand customs, they don't have useful skills for their country.  My suggestion is that they be set up during their time in this country to be the best young people that their country needs -- not some crappy media studies graduate working in Starbucks and moaning about how there's some paperwork malfunction.

[Of course they won't like this -- but what makes them 'ours'?  These war torn countries take years and years to recover, partly (but significantly) because all their youth has buggered off.  This can't be good 'for the world'.  These countries need their next generation to inspire and build -- not make us coffee and clean our cars.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always surprises me that these peace loving people that just want a peaceful life seem to form the most violent societies on earth.

This is when the So-Called BBC is shit. After a terrorist attack we're not mean to judge a whole group by the actions of a few individuals. Yet we're mean to think refugees are OK because the So-Called BBC has an article on some OK ones? It's intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Errol said:

Any refugees should be going back to wherever they came from. End of story. That's the whole point of being a refugee.

They should not be permitted to remain in the country once their country of origin is safe.

We should make exceptions. 

Esther looks like a Christian to me. Perhaps we can have an exchange program where we take lots of refugees who look like Esther and  send back our homegrown Hippos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dgul said:

They are being sensible.  Anyone would do the same.  But is it right 'for the world'?

The issue is that if you are being fair and relocation is our policy,  then we have another 20m people to relocate here otherwise we are just “picking winners”.  Why is this family (nice as I’m sure they are) more deserving than any of the others there?

We should either relocate all of them (who want to..  presumably most)..  or instead (and preferably) help them improve their own country instead so they no longer want to leave.

I don’t see how concentrating global populations in tighter and tighter confinement is good for anyone.  It just makes the whole world worse for everyone (IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tdog said:

By the way the women dress its clear they will never fit into British culture and they clearly are not trying.

Ghani with his family

Ghani with his family

I see two things - two women in buqkas wholl never work and just leach. And Someone in a wheelchair.

Oh, and an investment banker. Sorry, barber.

Im with dgul - these people fucked off to Syria from Kuwait. The Kuwaiti qar (Iraq1) wa over in less than a fucking year - 1990/1991.

Why the fuck did he not go back?

Asyum should be a short term thing - 5 years max.

If the asylum seeker wants to stay in thr host country then they need to aplly for citizenship using the usual routes and acceptance criteria.

Asylum should also be very near the country in trouble.

Despite all the crap said, Syria is purely a nasty civil war, a regional conflict caused by strife in the country/region.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MrPin said:

In my book they actually qualify as refugees. I think some Western countries have made Syria even shittier than it used to be.

Anyway what about those French Hugenots who came here at the end of the 18th century?

I don't understand the logic of moving people from a situation where they under direct threat of death in a (relatively) poor country directly to a safe affluent 1st world lifestyle. If were talking lives saved per £ then it would be a much better allocation of resources to give each person in a war torn country the absolute minimum help necessary to take them out of direct physical danger, I see absolutely no reason why they should be gifted an economically comfortable lifestyle in addition to that - why are they any more deserving of that than the millions of eastern europeans (for example) who arn't in a war torn country but havnt got a pot to piss in economically ?. 

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.