Printable View
Absolutely Jim, and if we are supposed to be one big Europe, if these people do not have papers etc, why are they not sent back out of Europe???, to wherever they came from, no these are the Germans and their rules. Would have called it pass the refugees, bit like pass the parcel we played as kids, KT
Hi Keith.
How will Angela's plans go down with Hungary? weren't they the ones who put up a fence right away and refused entry, saying that they were a Christian country and didn't want to be over run by Slimms? I see the Gestapo stepping in again.
Cheers Des
That appears to be the biggest problem for EU, so many points of entry and the system where one country can close a border forcing refugees and others into other countries. Until all close their borders it will not stop. Germany had stuffed up big time and will now attempt to unload on to any country stupid enough to take them. What you lot need is border control such as we have here in Oz. Anyone arriving be it by air or sea or attempting to come illegaly gets the fourth degree. It is estimated at least 50% of those who arrive by air are sent back within 24 hours of arriving. Our immigration people are red hot.
There is growing discontent in Germany after Merkel allowed all those refugees in.
In Cologne over the New Year 1000 young women reported being sexually harassed or raped by men of coloured or Arabic ethnic origin.
Riots in Leipzig by right wing groups protesting against all the migrants and in other German cities due to the huge increase in crimes committed by the refugees.
Same in Sweden where mass sexual assaults on women have been reported as being carried out by these migrants.
Send em all back and let them face up to their actions in their own country.
rgds
JA
Re the latter part John. my view is that if these ,by now millions, since early sixties, .Had not been encouraged ,and allowed ,once settled , .to nominate ten family members. ,Then it follows. There would not be the Demand ,relatively, on the Health Resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHN PRUDEN
Just as an idle thought re the acceptance of refugees into a country on a non permanent basis. On the recent lowering of the embargo on Cuba by the US and the normal trade with, in the pipeline. I see no rush for all the so called refugees from there which was actively encouraged by the US at the time, to return to their homeland. Tens of thousands according to the media at the time were made welcome in Florida and other states. The fiasco of the Bay of Pigs was always kept under wraps as to who was responsible. Once people achieve their aim of getting domicile /refuge in a country there is no shifting them. Today if I am correct you have members of the Republican party of ex Cuban descent competing to become the commander in chief of the US, no outcry as to their background as there was with Obama. If a country accepts people into its way of life they are there regardless. The one reason why I voted Liberal at the Australian General Election as they were the only party capable of doing it and stopping the boats. As regards Cuba, I visited under both regimes Batista and Castro and one was as bad as another, only that Batista was supported by the US, the same as Russia supports the present incumbent in Syria. You could say the same difference. JS
Hi Keith.
I have just finished a book which was only written two years ago, in it the main character an Indian who hasn't a passport is caught in a truck at Dover, and as the law stands is deported from Britain back to the country he left last; which [he came from France ] but he has no papers but a black bloke in the truck with him had came from Spain; so they were sent there. is this what they do?
Cheers Des
Des. most of us don't even know what the law is nowadays. Perhaps this subject should be taught in schools. In general it appears there is the UN law which all countries do not subscribe to, in fact just the opposite. the world is not united, it is as it always has been divided by class colour and creed and overall today by religion, which one would think that in todays present scientific world would be a thing relegated to the stone age. In our time I thought that if one was on a ship of a foreign nationality in another foreign port, it would have a similar sanctity as a foreign embassy does. This doesn't seem to be the case nowadays so somewhere along the line has been changed to suit. There are all sorts of things pop up as by law we are told, I think the general public accept as true, a lot of which should be questioned. As far as I am concerned every country should rule itself and make its own laws for their country, and strict and open restrictions kept on our own legislators who are elected into those positions to carry out the will of the majority. This being forced by someone else to accept the will of foreigners Is not the way of the average citizen. Look forward to seeing a lot of it in the UK if they proceed further into the Euro world of make belief. For a country to invade another used to be considered an act of war, how times have changed, the first time of changing would to my knowledge been in the Korean war which was called a police action. In later conflicts it was called help to the existing government viz the Vietnam war. Everyone tries to keep away from the term war, when in fact it has been committed numeruous times in the past 60 odd years or so, even more so than in earlier centuries. A lot of such wars are to the benefit of others and to maintain their own status in the world and to supply work and materials to their own. In fact a lot of conflicts are justifiable in a lot of peoples eyes, and have ample excuses for such. Hitler had the excuse of the Spanish Civil war to test out the potential of his Luftwaffe. The likes of North Korea sitting with one of the biggest armies in the world would love to test his own capabilities, one doesn't have huge bodies of men sitting around not doing what they are trained for. Our own civil laws I question to myself often but have to go along with the majority, other countries don't do this. That song I wanna talk like you, Walk like you, bebop a doolah, does not apply, the living together of different races may succeed in low doses, it certainly wont succeed in the take over by whole countries. Its about time the world got some proper leaders who can face up and speak the truth. That is why Donald Trump has made the headway he has, he is appealing to the ordinary man in the street and not the moguls of industry and high finance that have things to lose if he gets in and disturbs once again the status quo. I would suspect he is already a marked man, as others have been before him. Cheers JS
There is so much turmoil in the world today. Refugees from where one may ask, interviewed on TV with all the 'Syrian' ones were two who claimed they are from Africa and hope to reach Europe somewhere.
Some govs take note of UN laws but that is few indeed. Many govs now are beginning to listen to the people and putting strong defenses in place to reduce the number arriving. If it wins votes they will do it .
J.S. Re. #48 F.Y.I. (Don't hold me to the exact dates, but I'm close).
In 1966 the U.S. agreed to accept anybody who fled from Cuba. Hoards came, and after a year and a day they were granted a residents visa.
In the early 1980s, Castro granted an amnesty to any "malcontents" who wanted to go to the States and granted temporary permit to leave Cuba, this was called the Mariel Boatlift (sp?). Castro emptied his jails and lunatic asylums and mental hospitals and cleaned the streets of all hoodlum gang members, dumped the lot in boats and included them in the Boatlift. There were loads of real bad barstewards that arrived on the shores, and the U.S. slapped those identified as such straight into prison. However, in spite of it being International law, Castro refused to take them back.
In 1995 the law was modified, if Cuban exiles were stopped at sea they were returned to Cuba, however, if they landed on the U.S. shore they were granted entry. It was called the wet feet/dry feet policy.
Currently Cubans are coming into the U,S. in huge numbers as they are worried that with the current easing of tensions that the U.S. is going to stop the privileged status the Cubans have enjoyed as refugees.
At the moment, after a round about journey via Venezuela , Central America, and Mexico, all Cubans have to do is present their passport and they are fingerprinted and welcomed to the U.S. pishing off the Mexicans no end. My guess is it will be halted.
There were two Children of Cubans amongst the Republican contenders. Marco Rubio (who "suspended" his running yesterday), son of Cuban immigrants to the U.S., and Ted Cruz, son of an American mother and a Cuban father. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Which I find humorous after the stink raised by the right wing tea party Republicans, who, despite Obama being born in Hawaii of an American mother and a Kenyan father (legally in the U.S. attending university) and a birth certificate to prove his U.S. birth, raised such a fuss for years about Obama not being a "Natural born U.S. citizen" per the Constitution.
As another aside. Bernie Sanders is the son of Polish immigrants and a Jew. Donald Trump is the son of a Scottish mother who emigrated from Stornaway, Scotland.
Neither Rubio or Cruz garnered the massive Cuban voting block in Florida. The majority voted Democrat and for Hillary Clinton.