Tipote said:

qman said:

"could secure the borders of Europe"
Yes, it there's a will there's a way.

---

100% security is a myth. even trying will roll back civil liberties and reduce Europe to a police state.
There is a lot of profit in people-smuggling, the risks going up just increase the profits.

Quote:

"The convention of refugees"
Who cares what a UN treaty says when total chaos is taking place?

---

the treaties were signed voluntarily by all countries for this purpose. when war arises, a policy needs to be in place for protecting those fleeing war.

Quote:

"I think a land route into Europe must be made"

I disagree, a route should be made towards their homelands.

---

a route back to syria? so you'd sent them back into the grave that is Syria? do you still have a problem with the definition of a refugee?

where your polish family refugees or just economic migrants?

Quote:

"you cannot seal the border 100%"

That's true, but 99.9% will satisfy the native population.

---

99.99% is turning Europe into a fortress. its not going to happen

Quote:

"The Australian model...shit"

Sealing the border from invaders isn't shit, the fact that these illegals are not satisfied with their detention is too bad, don't invade a sovereign nation and there's nothing to worry about.

---

what invaders? most of them are from sri lanka, indonesia and polynesia.

illegals "not satisfied with their detention is too bad"?? wtf is wrong with you. there are children being raped and whistleblowers silenced with imprisonment. the people in these camps are in terrible conditions.

---

Trying to come into Australia illegally from Indonesia doesn't make one an invader?

Don't invade a sovereign nation if you don't want to be in a detention center. The fact that they put their children at risk doesn't make it Australia's fault.

My Polish ancestors coming to the US had jobs waiting for them upon arrival, they were wanted and needed, the complete opposite of the Muslims flooding into the EU.

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

Quote:

My Polish ancestors coming to the US had jobs waiting for them upon arrival, they were wanted and needed, the complete opposite of the Muslims flooding into the EU.

---

qman said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

You do realize that the UN is a complete joke that no one really respects?  Why should Germany give two shits about it?

---

zappaisgod said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

They most certainly are invaders and yes they did.  They are regretting it now.  So is most of Europe.

---

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

My Polish ancestors coming to the US had jobs waiting for them upon arrival, they were wanted and needed, the complete opposite of the Muslims flooding into the EU.

---

that is the stupidest argument i've ever seen.

there were jobs waiting for your Polish refugees because it wasn't 2015, you joker you.

if it would have been an occasion such as what is happening now -- you'd have the same function in this argument as the Muslims.


you're a hypocrite.

---

qman said:

Trying to come into Australia illegally from Indonesia doesn't make one an invader?

Don't invade a sovereign nation if you don't want to be in a detention center. The fact that they put their children at risk doesn't make it Australia's fault.

My Polish ancestors coming to the US had jobs waiting for them upon arrival, they were wanted and needed, the complete opposite of the Muslims flooding into the EU.

---

Quote:

They weren't refugees, they were offered the opportunity to legally enter the US and they took it, big difference.

---

they were refugees. a land grab by the Nazi's displaced many Poles, including those that were rescued after the war, from concentration camps.

you changing the wording makes no difference.

ref-u-gee

1: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.


you're wrong. go back to your corner.

qman said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

You do realize that the UN is a complete joke that no one really respects?  Why should Germany give two shits about it?

---

Bubbles85 said:

What i want to know, is why the fuck every one is still so fixated on the word refugee.

It is well documented that well over 60% of the people coming into Europe, are not refugees and do not qualify for refugee status.

Should these people still be allowed to just rock up, whilst blatantly taking advantage of the situation and get to stay? After all, they are the majority of the people that are coming?

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

You do realize that the UN is a complete joke that no one really respects?  Why should Germany give two shits about it?

---

The UN is a joke only because there is no accountability. the UN is a joke because there are clear double standards depending on what the US wants.

The point of the UN was to prevent global war and to prevent the situations we now face. The UN consistently fails for multiple reasons but whats the problem with international law/conventions?

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Trying to come into Australia illegally from Indonesia doesn't make one an invader?

Don't invade a sovereign nation if you don't want to be in a detention center. The fact that they put their children at risk doesn't make it Australia's fault.

My Polish ancestors coming to the US had jobs waiting for them upon arrival, they were wanted and needed, the complete opposite of the Muslims flooding into the EU.

---

Again, i still think you fail to understand what a refugee is and what the convention says. If a refugee breaches the borders of signatories to the convention of 51/67, they are not illegal.

If people are desperate enough to risk their lives to get to Aus by boat, they aren't going to stop

long term international detention centres is against international law anyway. If people arent genuine refugees, they can be processed and deported, NOT put in long term detention where they are abused and kept in inhumane conditions.

---

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

They weren't refugees, they were offered the opportunity to legally enter the US and they took it, big difference.

---

they were refugees. a land grab by the Nazi's displaced many Poles, including those that were rescued after the war, from concentration camps.

you changing the wording makes no difference.

ref-u-gee

1: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.


you're wrong. go back to your corner.

---

qman said:

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

You do realize that the UN is a complete joke that no one really respects?  Why should Germany give two shits about it?

---

The UN is a joke only because there is no accountability. the UN is a joke because there are clear double standards depending on what the US wants.

The point of the UN was to prevent global war and to prevent the situations we now face. The UN consistently fails for multiple reasons but whats the problem with international law/conventions?

---

If you can't enforce international law/conventions, they're not worth the paper they are written on, once again another example of theoretical land.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

refugees are not invaders.

Aus signed the 51/67 convention.

---

You do realize that the UN is a complete joke that no one really respects?  Why should Germany give two shits about it?

---

The UN is a joke only because there is no accountability. the UN is a joke because there are clear double standards depending on what the US wants.

The point of the UN was to prevent global war and to prevent the situations we now face. The UN consistently fails for multiple reasons but whats the problem with international law/conventions?

---

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

What i want to know, is why the fuck every one is still so fixated on the word refugee.

It is well documented that well over 60% of the people coming into Europe, are not refugees and do not qualify for refugee status.

Should these people still be allowed to just rock up, whilst blatantly taking advantage of the situation and get to stay? After all, they are the majority of the people that are coming?

---

you cant elimate opportunists from the world. some people will of course try to come among the influx of refugees. that is why they should be processed better, to identify those who are refugees and of the most need, and to deport economic migrants.

refugee is an important word, just as the law is that says refugees are guaranteed protection by countries that sign the convention. Refugee means something, its not someone that would just rather be in Europe, they flee their homes because they are destroyed etc etc. Most countries are taking many many times more than Europe as a whole.

the 60% figure is a recent figure now that economic migrants are increasingly trying their luck, but this is not representative of the total influx.

no one is ssaying that economic migrants and anyone can come in, refugees only. anyone else is open to deportation. refugees are open to deportation if they break the law.

---

Some? 60% is alot more than some. I would also argue the fact, that the people who do not qualify for refugee status, have been rocking in illegally right from the start.

It seems to me, that people keep purposely derailing the issues, around the very large majority of people who should be deported, or stopped from entering Europe, by using the word refugee as a way to categorizing every single migrant coming here within that group. Which is far from the truth.

I have not heard any member on this forum, reject calls to help GENUINE refugees.

"no one is ssaying that economic migrants and anyone can come in, refugees only. anyone else is open to deportation. refugees are open to deportation if they break the law."

Good we do agree on some things then.