2 ms·

I read your other comments, and I have a honest question for you. First let me say that I completely agree with you in that when a refugee illegally moves from

by oneloop 10y ago

I read your other comments, and I have a honest question for you. First let me say that I completely agree with you in that when a refugee illegally moves from France to the UK, he is doing so for his own convenience. You're right, after he's in France he's not running for his life, he's doing something illegal just because he prefers one over the other. But at the same time, I would like to understand why you are so vehemently opposed to him being legally allowed to pick wherever he prefers. If I'm born in France I can legally move and work in the UK, what in your mind is the rationale for not extending the same privileges to someone who's been given refugee status in France? Honest question.

buckbova 10y ago
A nation should protect its sovereignty and the welfare of its people. Perhaps the UK would prefer to do its own background check on the man before just letting anyone in.
- gakada 10y ago
  In the documentary they said that ~70% of Syrians who made it to the UK were granted asylum. So evidently the UK is doing its own background checks.
DominikR 10y ago
I see it this way: If somebody is about to die or be seriously harmed giving refuge is the moral thing to do. But once some person is in a safe place where there is no threat for him then immigration laws apply instead of asylum laws. So why do I want to differentiate between immigration and asylum? (and generally all Western countries do so) Asylum is something you grant based on moral principles, immigration is something that we grant only voluntarily. And here I want my country to choose new immigrants based on what skills we need, what skills the migrant brings to the table and of course we also have to take into consideration if we are capable of absorbing them into society. Meaning: Do they have a chance to integrate and lead a successful life here or not. This is very important because in Europe we already have no go zones where police cannot enter and the inhabitants basically implement some kind of Sharia law. I will never accept living under some kind of alternative law without a fight. This does not mean that I am against Muslims, but I want to preserve the culture that we have here and more importantly the freedoms and the social order.

by oneloop 10y ago

buckbova 10y ago

A nation should protect its sovereignty and the welfare of its people. Perhaps the UK would prefer to do its own background check on the man before just letting anyone in.

gakada 10y ago
In the documentary they said that ~70% of Syrians who made it to the UK were granted asylum. So evidently the UK is doing its own background checks.

DominikR 10y ago

I see it this way: If somebody is about to die or be seriously harmed giving refuge is the moral thing to do. But once some person is in a safe place where there is no threat for him then immigration laws apply instead of asylum laws. So why do I want to differentiate between immigration and asylum? (and generally all Western countries do so) Asylum is something you grant based on moral principles, immigration is something that we grant only voluntarily. And here I want my country to choose new immigrants based on what skills we need, what skills the migrant brings to the table and of course we also have to take into consideration if we are capable of absorbing them into society. Meaning: Do they have a chance to integrate and lead a successful life here or not. This is very important because in Europe we already have no go zones where police cannot enter and the inhabitants basically implement some kind of Sharia law. I will never accept living under some kind of alternative law without a fight. This does not mean that I am against Muslims, but I want to preserve the culture that we have here and more importantly the freedoms and the social order.