qman said:

Bubbles85 said:

Wow, shes actually suggesting that all Iraqi and Syrian refugees return home when ISIS is defeated.
She must be getting desperate to start making these sorts of claims.

Most of her own party are against her policies regarding this situation.

There's no way these people will just return home of there own free will, when, or should i say IF, Syria and Iraq finally become stable place's to live.

---

illegals have to leave.

---

qman said:

Yeah, spending money on refugees is a "stimulus package for the economy".

Borrowing money and then spending it on refugees doesn't create economic prosperity, the people that don't understand economics keep spewing this nonsense, fucking unreal.

Japan has been in a economic slump for over 25 years, if they only brought in 20 million peasants from China to "stimulate" their economy!! That line of reasoning is beyond idiotic.

---

It was from your linked study

Or do you only like one part of the studies conclusions?

Tipote said:

qman said:

Yeah, spending money on refugees is a "stimulus package for the economy".

Borrowing money and then spending it on refugees doesn't create economic prosperity, the people that don't understand economics keep spewing this nonsense, fucking unreal.

Japan has been in a economic slump for over 25 years, if they only brought in 20 million peasants from China to "stimulate" their economy!! That line of reasoning is beyond idiotic.

---

It was from your linked study

Or do you only like one part of the studies conclusions?

---

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

I agree! I'm not in favour of an open door. I am in favour of taking refugees under well organised and well managed mechanisms- I think this should start from UN camps.

---

This is exactly where the British PM has got it bang on. As I'm sure you are aware, he has advocated places in the UK, only to the most vulnerable people, that are specifically selected from refugee camps in Syria's immediate vicinity.

He has opted out of relocating, or accepting, any migrant in to the country, that has come into the EU of there own accord, which is exactly the right decision to make, considering that, at that stage, we do not know who they are, or where they are from, once there here illegally.

At least this way, we know the people who really need the help the most (like the elderly, women and children) are getting it, instead of free loading economic migrants.

Thats not to say that immigration policy is not still a complete and utter mess in the UK, it most certainly is. But with this particular crisis, i think there doing the right thing.

---

Yes, I'm glad that Cameron is at least doing the kindertransport kind of thing, hes also taking refugees from UN camps as youre saying, and he is even taking people from the calais jungle if they have family in the UK.

I think its unrealistic to think refugees aren't going to come if we just take people from UN camps. The fact is, the rules are that if your family are in the country then you can come. I don't think that people coming by themselves should be fully rejected, i'm just saying that with more being taken from the UN camp then we can focus on the most vulnerable while at the same time creating the incentive to believe in the process of resettlement from the UN camps. That might stop people wanting to make the journey themselves. I do think, however, that just because someone was able to come by themselves, they arent necessarily less vulnerable. Some of the people the UK is taking from calais are mentally retarded refugees and children.

I think that not accepting any people that came into the EU by themselves is a mistake. They are entitled to protection if they are genuine refugees, unless they make arrangements for them to be deported to another safe country, there will be thousands of people just lingering around in Europe. If people are just allowed to fester in the Calais Jungle, its not going anywhere. Festering for years in slums isn't going to be helpful in the long run for anyone.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Have you got any links that refer to Cameron taking in refugees from Calais? That's the first I've heard of it.

The last news i saw on the subject, suggested that, that plan had been wholly rejected, to prevent encouraging further illegals from coming in to Northern France.

I was under the impression, that he was only allowing a maximum of 20,000 of the most vulnerable, to come in over 5 years from UN camps bordering Syria. Mainly the elderly, women and children.

---

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

Have you got any links that refer to Cameron taking in refugees from Calais? That's the first I've heard of it.

The last news i saw on the subject, suggested that, that plan had been wholly rejected, to prevent encouraging further illegals from coming in to Northern France.

I was under the impression, that he was only allowing a maximum of 20,000 of the most vulnerable, to come in over 5 years from UN camps bordering Syria. Mainly the elderly, women and children.

---

Youre right but there will be many who have family in the UK and who are coming on foot, they will be accepted.

The case I mentioned only includes 4 refugees right now.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/four-syrian-refugees-must-brought-calais-camp-britain-judges-rule

---

Damn, so the 20,000 that they plan to bring in legally, will create a loop hole for there family's to follow them.
Obviously illegally at first, up in to Calais and then on in to the UK by legal means.
Seems like that is only going to make the problems faced in Calais worse as time goes on. Its all ready bad enough as it is.



Do you know if the four migrants being allowed in from the jungle are relatives of recent Syrian arrivals, from UN camps?

Bubbles85 said:

Damn, so the 20,000 that they plan to bring in legally, will create a loop hole for there family's to follow them.
Obviously illegally at first, up in to Calais and then on in to the UK by legal means.
Seems like that is only going to make the problems faced in Calais worse as time goes on. Its all ready bad enough as it is.



Do you know if the four migrants being allowed in from the jungle are relatives of recent Syrian arrivals, from UN camps?

---

Tipote said:

First of all, its not illegal to breach borders as a refugee so coming to Calais isnt a problem. Especially now that the dublin protocol has been waived EU-wide.

---

qman said:

Borrowing money and then spending it on refugees doesn't create economic prosperity, the people that don't understand economics keep spewing this nonsense, fucking unreal.

Japan has been in a economic slump for over 25 years, if they only brought in 20 million peasants from China to "stimulate" their economy!! That line of reasoning is beyond idiotic.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

I am french with muslims, jews, buddhists and christians in my family.

---

Out of interest Tipote, where do you fit within that family? Are you even religious?

---

No, i'm not religious at all. I dont like religion as a whole.

Religion is lame. I'd rather just work things out myself with my own faculties.

---

Well, at least thats one thing the majority "left or right" can at least agree upon in this thread

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Borrowing money and then spending it on refugees doesn't create economic prosperity, the people that don't understand economics keep spewing this nonsense, fucking unreal.

Japan has been in a economic slump for over 25 years, if they only brought in 20 million peasants from China to "stimulate" their economy!! That line of reasoning is beyond idiotic.

---

Though I agree it doesn't create economic prosperity (broken window fallacy), it's not a negative for the economy either.  It's great for the people providing goods and services to the refugees, but it's not great for the taxpayers, with roughly a neutral overall effect on the economy.

Same thing with bringing people in.  It's not a net positive, but it's not negative either.  Robert Reich explains:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Borrowing money and then spending it on refugees doesn't create economic prosperity, the people that don't understand economics keep spewing this nonsense, fucking unreal.

Japan has been in a economic slump for over 25 years, if they only brought in 20 million peasants from China to "stimulate" their economy!! That line of reasoning is beyond idiotic.

---

Though I agree it doesn't create economic prosperity (broken window fallacy), it's not a negative for the economy either.  It's great for the people providing goods and services to the refugees, but it's not great for the taxpayers, with roughly a neutral overall effect on the economy.

Same thing with bringing people in.  It's not a net positive, but it's not negative either.  Robert Reich explains:

---

Bubbles85 said:

It may not be a problem in terms of legality for the migrants, but is that not the point surrounding why this entire mess has gotten in to the situation it has today?

There's no control, what so ever.

I'm strongly opposed to the illegal camps in Northern France. What is being allowed to happen there is outrageous and it has continued now for years.
It's estimated that the original illegal camp "sangatte" and now replaced by "The Jungle" was used by an estimated 60,000 migrants to gain illegal entry into the UK.

Calais is a crisis in its own right, with out even taking into account the rest of the EU.

---

Quote:

To leave people to freeze in the mud as a deterrent to others thinking of making the same journey is unacceptable; it is also inhumane.
- Vickie Hawkins, MSF UK Executive Director

---

Quote:

There was never a proper infrastructure to replace Sangatte, as there has never been an acceptable policy between the British and French. We end up with a humanitarian crisis on our doorstep, herding people into shipping containers. Better living conditions means destroying a fragile community because no one wants to say how permanent this accommodation is. But then no one wants to say these are people. They are detritus to be cleared away. The political conversation is of brave Kurds fighting Isis; the reality is of Kurdish families trying to keep their children warm by sleeping in a swamp just across the Channel. We will take Syrians but not the ones who have made it to Calais. Most of all there is the repeated and failing mantra that this hellhole must act as a deterrent.

I don’t suppose there are many votes for Cameron in doing much about this disaster, except maybe a sense of what Europe might be. Why are we prepared to let thousands live in conditions that don’t meet the standards of the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon? This utter failure of joined-up thinking plays out in the rhetoric around refugees. Humanity is bulldozed away. All that’s protected is a Banksy mural, carefully covered up.
from here

---

Bigbadwooof said:

I think the economic arguments on this subject are moot anyways. This is about human lives, and the economics take a back seat, at least for myself, and other civilized people.

---

Quote:

However, the economic case is far overshadowed by the other arguments, which are legitimate.
It seems to me that bringing Syrians home is begging for some sort of mass murder/atrocity.

---

Quote:

Muslims are more likely to become Islamic extremist jihadists than anyone else. That's a fact. Are all of them bad? No. What percentage of them turning into extremists is acceptable? I would argue, anything above 0% is unacceptable. If even one of them bombs Americans, or Europeans, it is unacceptable.

---

Quote:

What level of abuse of our women is acceptable? I would argue that very little will, or should be tolerated.
Can anyone assure me that none of them will be extremists, or their descendants? Nope. Can anyone assure me that their men won't mob and mug American women? Maybe, but it appears to be a trend.

---

qman said:

Reich makes a LOT of huge assumptions, IF the immigrants are working, we know many are NOT working and only using the social services.

---

qman said:

Yes, if there was a SHORTAGE of labor then immigrants can contribute to economic growth, that's NOT the case today, we have a SURPLUS of labor relative to demand.

---

qman said:

Also, I really wouldn't be very proud to use the CBO estimates, they're forecasting track record is beyond disastrous.

---

It's probably the best you can get.  Whose are better? 

qman said:

Reich is also using the past use of immigrants in making the economic assumption that present day immigrants are positive for the economy, that's ancient history compared to the world we live in today.

---

qman said:

The US already has too many US citizens NOT working, bringing in more people to the labor pool doesn't create more jobs or economic prosperity.

---

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

More spending leads to more jobs

---

How does an unemployed person spend money, freebies from the government!! That's a mis-allocation of resources.

---

Once again I'll ask you to share your statistics on refugee unemployment.  According to The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh,

Quote:

Syrian-Americans have a median household income of over $65,000, which is $10,000 more than the native-born median household income.

---

That's actually a GOOD thing for the economy.

qman said:

You do realize the CBO has an political agenda, why are all of their "estimates" slanted towards unattainable upside?    Anyone with any degree of commonsense can out forecast the CBO.

---

Again, I'd love to see your evidence that their predictions aren't as good as "anyone with any degree of commonsense".

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

jobs go up proportionally with population

---

That might have occurred in the past, but that isn't the case today. Technology kills jobs and as it improves it will kill even more jobs regardless the size of the population.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

---

Technology may kill some jobs, but it also creates others.  I work in Silicon Valley where technology created hundreds of thousands of very high paying jobs.

qman said:

"beginning in 2000...productivity continues to rise robustly, but employment suddenly wilts"

"the pressure on employment and the resulting inequality will only get worse"

---

A great advertisement for why we need Bernie Sanders as President!