• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating 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  
Frank Hovis

How long is someone a refugee - 70 years?

Recommended Posts

The UN Relief and Works Agency was set up after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq attacked Israel and lost) which displaced 700,000 Palestinians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

The UNRWA was set up to feed, educate, house, and doctor to this 700,000.

Now 70 years' on it is still doing just that but for over five million of their descendants and a newly confident US, the main funder as ever of UN largesse, has very reasonably said "enough".

 

_99451382_palestinian_aid_02.jpg

Naturally the Palestinians are upset by having the free money tap turned off:

"A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas later said the move was an "assault" against his people."

As are the highly paid UN troughers who see nothing wrong with still providing all material needs for five million people seventy years' on:

world-us-canada-45377336

https://www.rt.com/usa/437380-palestinian-refugees-funding-cut-us/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45377336

 

Nice to see another big explosion of common sense from Trump's America.

Lead story on the So-Called BBC news page; they obviously think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be permanently kept as refugees and have everything paid for by somebody else seventy years' on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Lead story on the So-Called BBC news page; they obviously think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be permanently kept as refugees and have everything paid for by somebody else seventy years' on.

Pretty much sums up the TV licence so no surprise there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would have a Palestinian refugee camp on their territory after all the trouble that followed in Jordan and Lebanon - Black September in Jordan, the Lebanese civil war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Panther said:

Who would have a Palestinian refugee camp on their territory after all the trouble that followed in Jordan and Lebanon - Black September in Jordan, the Lebanese civil war

Saudi?  And scrap the refugee status.

Whilst it's a lovely well paying career for the UN that's a seven fold increase in seventy years; the rate will have shot up over the last twenty so what do you do when that five million becomes thirty five million all on the UN refugee programme.  What about a hundred million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PatronizingGit said:

I first developed an interest in current affairs back in 1998/99 when I was 14 or 15. I remember that time because the big bruhaha of the day was the Kosovan 'asylum seekers' 

I remember of course, as a teenager, being of the attitude 'let them all in, let them all in' and thinking the tabloids were hysterical with their doom stories (as it happened, i think there were quite a lot of stabbings, and they ended up controlling most the drugs racket in Glasgow) however even back then, call it naivety or just plain being daft, assumed they would all be sent back/freely return to their country when it was safe back home. It never occurred to me, as the time a blank slate of a mind with no prejudices, that they would have the right to occupy another country for all eternity just because of a temporary situation in their nation. That just seemed absurd and a desecration of the word refugee. You are surely no longer a refugee once you source country is perfectly safe. 

 

I wonder how many people accept refugee's just because they assume the same. Remember most people have very little interest in politics. It seems incredibly naive, but perhaps thats how most see things.

Exactly.  There is a massive problem in the world because of the definition of refugee by organisations such as the UN, and their accepted 'normal solutions'.  There should be two halves to refugee status:

  • Be allowed to turn up at a place and expect some generosity if not actual welcome.
  • In turn, be expected to return to said country as soon as it was safe.

It is the latter part that doesn't seem to ever work.  yet that part is really important -- for example, I'd suggest we wouldn't have the problems we're having housing Syrian refugees if there weren't decades of refugees from previous disasters hanging around and taking up all the housing / resources.

I think we should be far more generous, but with a mandated (no excuses) return policy when decided by government.  I actually think the current situation is rather racist -- when it is time to leave we get all the cries of 'but they're special' or 'but they won't have sanitation' or whatever -- but what right does the UK have to hold their special gifts -- surely it belongs to their homeland?  And of course the country will have poor sanitation -- they've been in a war and all the young people with sanitation installation skills left!  They need them back!  Oh, and there's the most racist policy of all -- 'but they've become important members of the UK, working in the NHS'.  We shouldn't expect people from overseas to solve our problems all the while bribing them to stay away from the place that actually needs them most.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PatronizingGit said:

I first developed an interest in current affairs back in 1998/99 when I was 14 or 15. I remember that time because the big bruhaha of the day was the Kosovan 'asylum seekers' 

I remember of course, as a teenager, being of the attitude 'let them all in, let them all in' and thinking the tabloids were hysterical with their doom stories (as it happened, i think there were quite a lot of stabbings, and they ended up controlling most the drugs racket in Glasgow) however even back then, call it naivety or just plain being daft, assumed they would all be sent back/freely return to their country when it was safe back home. It never occurred to me, as the time a blank slate of a mind with no prejudices, that they would have the right to occupy another country for all eternity just because of a temporary situation in their nation. That just seemed absurd and a desecration of the word refugee. You are surely no longer a refugee once you source country is perfectly safe. 

 

I wonder how many people accept refugee's just because they assume the same. Remember most people have very little interest in politics. It seems incredibly naive, but perhaps thats how most see things.

I suspect part of the problem is that during the Cold War anyone defecting from a Warsaw Pact country could not really go back as long as the soviets were in power, which up until the late 80s looked like being for all time. So we got used to the idea that once people got to the west they stayed permanently. Also, back in the day, travel was expensive so if somebody was a refugee such as the Vietnamese boat people in the 70s, they simply couldn't go back even if they wanted to.

Whereas now you get the ludicrous situation of asylum seekers jumping on budget flights to go back to their home countries for holidays! 

It's also not helped by quisling organisations such as the So-Called BBC constantly moving the goalposts on what being a refugee involves. So they use ludicrous statements like 'fleeing poverty' to justify en-masse migration to the west; if we used this argument logically most native Brits should be allowed to rock up in Switzerland and claim asylum because they have higher wages than us. 

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saudi's population density is tiny. They could house millions of refugees and not even notice. They've even got a part called the Empty Quarter where nobody lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Saudi's population density is tiny. They could house millions of refugees and not even notice. They've even got a part called the Empty Quarter where nobody lives. 

For good reason for the Empty Quarter (all just huge mobile sand dunes, and guarded by Uriel if you've read Weaveworld) but the rest of it absolutely.

It's been said before that the people keeping the Palestinians in stateless poverty is the rest of the Arab world because they are a propaganda weapon against Israel.

Egypt could open the border at their end of the Gaza Strip tomorrow but that would only help the Palestinians, it wouldn't hurt Israel so they're not going to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

 

It's also not helped by quisling organisations such as the So-Called BBC constantly moving the goalposts on what being a refugee involves. So they use ludicrous statements like 'fleeing poverty' to justify en-masse migration to the west; if we used this argument logically most native Brits should be allowed to rock up in Switzerland and claim asylum because they have higher wages than us. 

Yes -- that really annoys me.  There's nothing worse for someone fleeing an absolute tragedy to be classified alongside those just working around circumstances.

And 'economic migrancy can = refugee' is another deeply troublesome mindset.  The solution for war is to temporarily take in the suffering, for relocation after the war (if possible).  The proper solution for economic problems is never to encourage migrancy -- it is always to use economic investment to allow for conditions to improve.  If you solve it with migrancy you just end up with all the people who can't migrate (eg through age, infirmity) having an even worse time, and make the tasks of those who stay to support their country all the more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

Yes -- that really annoys me.  There's nothing worse for someone fleeing an absolute tragedy to be classified alongside those just working around circumstances.

And 'economic migrancy can = refugee' is another deeply troublesome mindset.  The solution for war is to temporarily take in the suffering, for relocation after the war (if possible).  The proper solution for economic problems is never to encourage migrancy -- it is always to use economic investment to allow for conditions to improve.  If you solve it with migrancy you just end up with all the people who can't migrate (eg through age, infirmity) having an even worse time, and make the tasks of those who stay to support their country all the more difficult.

Was talking to a lady friend about this the other day. She agreed that economic migrants to the UK are a form of exploitation because their home countries are deprived of their best people; she bemoaned the static level of wages in the UK.

But she's still a massive supporter of the fricking EU!! Her Facebook page is full of every anti-Brexit scare story going. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

In WW1 a quarter million Belgians fled to the UK when Germany invaded. After WW1 they went back home. I'm cool with refugees that fuck off when their country is safe again.

imho, refugees from Sri Lanka/ Kosovo/ Rwanda/ Syria etc should be fucking off as well. Asylum should be a temporary measure. 

It's the constant double standards that get me. If I went to Somalia etc I'd probably get killed if I went for a walk somewhere. Somalians arrive in the UK and get a free house and money. For any relationship to last it has to be "fair". If a mate only got in touch when he wanted something (and never helped you) he wouldn't be a mate for long. Third worlders arrive in the West and have virtually nothing to offer and only take. You can't expect white people to pay their taxes so a lot of Ahmed's can sit in their council houses watching Al Jazeera while plotting to kill white people.

The relationship between the brown community and white community in Europe isn't fair towards white people.

I’m cool with it as long as they don’t sit around on the largesse of others. The op, it seems that these people have been doing it for 70 years. Just cut the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, One percent said:

I’m cool with it as long as they don’t sit around on the largesse of others. The op, it seems that these people have been doing it for 70 years. Just cut the money. 

That's exactly what is and their population is growing exponentially.  Is the great grandchild of a refugee still a refugee? I would say not.

This is people falling to take responsibility for their own lives and being actively encouraged in this by a politicised UN.

It's shocking that we (as in the UK) are funding this.

Share this post


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

That's exactly what is and their population is growing exponentially.  Is the great grandchild of a refugee still a refugee? I would say not.

This is people falling to take responsibility for their own lives and being actively encouraged in this by a politicised UN.

It's shocking that we (as in the UK) are funding this.

One rep not enough +1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway leadin the way in Europe with a sensible policy

http://sputniknews.com/europe/201809051067759605-norway-refugees-safety-protection/

Norway has announced plans to deprive 1,600 Somali immigrants of their refugee status, as their homeland is considered safe enough to return to, the newspaper Nettavisen reported.

"The entire point of the Refugee Convention is that only people with real protection needs have the right to stay. Neither our constitution, nor our international obligations imply that foreigners per se are entitled to a certain type of status in Norway," Åmland explained. 

There is hope this paves the way for other Euro countries to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2018 at 10:11, dgul said:

Exactly.  There is a massive problem in the world because of the definition of refugee by organisations such as the UN, and their accepted 'normal solutions'.  There should be two halves to refugee status:

  • Be allowed to turn up at a place and expect some generosity if not actual welcome.
  • In turn, be expected to return to said country as soon as it was safe.

It is the latter part that doesn't seem to ever work.  yet that part is really important -- for example, I'd suggest we wouldn't have the problems we're having housing Syrian refugees if there weren't decades of refugees from previous disasters hanging around and taking up all the housing / resources.

I think we should be far more generous, but with a mandated (no excuses) return policy when decided by government.  I actually think the current situation is rather racist -- when it is time to leave we get all the cries of 'but they're special' or 'but they won't have sanitation' or whatever -- but what right does the UK have to hold their special gifts -- surely it belongs to their homeland?  And of course the country will have poor sanitation -- they've been in a war and all the young people with sanitation installation skills left!  They need them back!  Oh, and there's the most racist policy of all -- 'but they've become important members of the UK, working in the NHS'.  We shouldn't expect people from overseas to solve our problems all the while bribing them to stay away from the place that actually needs them most.

 

Perhaps the Labour Party could assist them with their definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maudit said:

Norway leadin the way in Europe with a sensible policy

http://sputniknews.com/europe/201809051067759605-norway-refugees-safety-protection/

Norway has announced plans to deprive 1,600 Somali immigrants of their refugee status, as their homeland is considered safe enough to return to, the newspaper Nettavisen reported.

"The entire point of the Refugee Convention is that only people with real protection needs have the right to stay. Neither our constitution, nor our international obligations imply that foreigners per se are entitled to a certain type of status in Norway," Åmland explained. 

There is hope this paves the way for other Euro countries to change.

There's been growing concern in Oslo about Somalis taking over parts of the city and making them no-go areas as far as white women are concerned, they also have a lot higher crime rate.

Norwegians are generally speaking nice people who follow the rules, however their way of upholding the rules has a fair bit of like it or bugger off in it. They don't take kindly to people who abuse their generosity or take the piss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.