Refugees

[Honest]

it's quite possible that a man goes alone at first, trying to get the rest of his family here later.

What kind of man would leave his family to islamic state? While he comes to Finland (which has absolutely **** all to do with the situation in Iraq and Syria) to moan about the handouts they are being given.

If you're fleeing from a life threatening situation, it is absolutely impossible that you leave your wife and children behind in that situation.
If the situation is not life threatening the guy is an economic opportunist and should be sent back.

A little common sense tells that these people are coming from refugee camps where life is terrible but no immediate danger to the lives of their families. So they have the option to sit there in terrible conditions for the foreseeable future or risk their lives for a better future for their families. Their arrival might be a problem here but these men are heroes for their families who are risking their lives and taking this dangerous journey for the better life of their families .

[Rick1]

Yes, it is a hell of a risk in your designercloths and I phones to take a plane from turkey to Sweden and then the train to Finland. It really did not look that they just have covered the mediterean sea on a Euro pallet. All those stupid stories. Time will tell, time will tell but the house from the PM will only be offered next year (when he still must be PM otherwise it will not be given) meanwhile they still think it is paradise here with everybody turning over their house.

[Piet]

If you're fleeing from a life threatening situation, it is absolutely impossible that you leave your wife and children behind in that situation.

Ever paid attention to the safety announcement they make in every flight:
in case of emergency ... if a child is seated beside you, put on your own mask before helping to put a mask on the child.

This is a fake argument, when the oxygen goes, you can help the kid getting it on once he passed out, if you pass out putting it on to him first, he will most likely be unable to put it on you so you die....this happens in a mater of seconds/2.5 minutes, not in a period of a few months like in a refugee case where a Father wants to bring his family over.

So the argument for not taking your kids and women with you is therefore invalid, it is safer as a group/Family, than leaving your (Females / children) family behind in hostile territory while saving your own skin in the hope to bring them over later.. to add to this, did anyone notice that from the few kids that are refugees, most are male too?

Just pointing out facts here and unmasking false arguments.

[Rick1]

I have read that females who are coming with these groups will be free to take advantage off. So I think a woman might think twice before she joins these groups. In Germany have been some rapes already.

[sky2]

so.. if you would be in that position would rather sit there and wait to die along with others or would you try to find a way for yourself first so that you can help them later? Why to pay thousands of euros to the human traffickers for each member and put their lives at risk when you can legally bring them with you once you are settled somewhere?

[Rick1]

You are right Sky, it has all the features of a Trojan horse. We just have to make a new city of 200.000= 4X50000 and it wil be all ok.

[Piet]

A little common sense tells that these people are coming from refugee camps where life is terrible but no immediate danger to the lives of their families. So they have the option to sit there in terrible conditions for the foreseeable future or risk their lives for a better future for their families. Their arrival might be a problem here but these men are heroes for their families who are risking their lives and taking this dangerous journey for the better life of their families .

Your little common sense tells me that because they are not in a life threatening situation, they do not qualify as an asylum seeker, because then your life should be in danger at the place they resided. This makes them an economic refugee and therefore not eligible for a refugee status in Finland or EU in general. Do you know in how many places in the world life can be qualified as terrible? Should we all grant them refugee status? Including the homeless from Amsterdam? Or the habitants from the Favelas in Rio?

So you defend with your post the economic refugee, that is ok to defend (free speech) but you should realise that this will give the real asylum-seeker less chance/place (resources are limited) and is therefore ethically incorrect.

Just pointing out the flaw in the arguments here.

[Piet]

I have read that females who are coming with these groups will be free to take advantage off. So I think a woman might think twice before she joins these groups. In Germany have been some rapes already.

So what happens with the women and children they leave behind without the protection of their fathers who escaped to Europe? Seems to me the chance of rape is a little bigger in the group that is left behind than the once that are with their husbands...

Just pointing out the flaw in the argument

[Piet]

so.. if you would be in that position would rather sit there and wait to die along with others or would you try to find a way for yourself first so that you can help them later? Why to pay thousands of euros to the human traffickers for each member and put their lives at risk when you can legally bring them with you once you are settled somewhere?

For that that argument to be valid, it would include that the majority of the refugees are here in Europe because of Human traffickers, that is a flawed assumption (and technically impossible).

Just pointing out the flaw in the argument

[sky2]

Just pointing out facts here and unmasking false arguments.

Just pointing out the flaw in the arguments here.

Just pointing out the flaw in the argument

Just pointing out the flaw in the argument

Alright, so you are the judge here and the arguments should be as you want to hear.

For that that argument to be valid, it would include that the majority of the refugees are here in Europe because of Human traffickers, that is a flawed assumption (and technically impossible).

And how do you think they manage to go across the sea after crossing a country or two? Just pack your bag, buy a ship and sail away?
Edit: smugglers would be more appropriate term that I should have used.

[Beep_Boop]

Wrong

Yes, it is a hell of a risk in your designercloths and I phones to take a plane from turkey to Sweden and then the train to Finland.

Only a very veeeery small fraction of those illegal migrants are coming to Europe by planes. The vast, overwhelming, majority are either crossing the Mediterranean or somehow smuggled through the Turkish borders to Greece. Airliner crews check passports and visa/RP before letting you in planes, especially when coming from outside EU.

I have read that females who are coming with these groups will be free to take advantage off. So I think a woman might think twice before she joins these groups. In Germany have been some rapes already.

You heard wrong. The majority of female illegal migrants usually come with a family male, for cultural and, obvious, safety reasons.

[Honest]

A little common sense tells that these people are coming from refugee camps where life is terrible but no immediate danger to the lives of their families. So they have the option to sit there in terrible conditions for the foreseeable future or risk their lives for a better future for their families. Their arrival might be a problem here but these men are heroes for their families who are risking their lives and taking this dangerous journey for the better life of their families .

Your little common sense tells me that because they are not in a life threatening situation, they do not qualify as an asylum seeker, because then your life should be in danger at the place they resided. This makes them an economic refugee and therefore not eligible for a refugee status in Finland or EU in general. Do you know in how many places in the world life can be qualified as terrible? Should we all grant them refugee status? Including the homeless from Amsterdam? Or the habitants from the Favelas in Rio?

So you defend with your post the economic refugee, that is ok to defend (free speech) but you should realise that this will give the real asylum-seeker less chance/place (resources are limited) and is therefore ethically incorrect.

Just pointing out the flaw in the arguments here.

Ignorance is not a good start for an argument. UN has been distributing refugees from these camps for decades and countries including Finland have been taking in those refugees for many many years. So they qualify for resettlement.

[Piet]

Alright, so you are the judge here and the arguments should be as you want to hear.

For that that argument to be valid, it would include that the majority of the refugees are here in Europe because of Human traffickers, that is a flawed assumption (and technically impossible).

And how do you think they manage to go across the sea after crossing a country or two? Just pack your bag, buy a ship and sail away?
Edit: smugglers would be more appropriate term that I should have used.

No I am not a judge whatsoever, I just happen to see the flaw in the argument.
Same as now, you talk about boats from Libia to italy I guess, (or the few boats from Syria to Turkey), because all other routes don't need boats. how many of the 800.000 refugees in Germany (this year) do you think took a boat, my guess would be not even 1 %.

so again, just pointing out the flaw in your argument

[Piet]

A little common sense tells that these people are coming from refugee camps where life is terrible but no immediate danger to the lives of their families. So they have the option to sit there in terrible conditions for the foreseeable future or risk their lives for a better future for their families. Their arrival might be a problem here but these men are heroes for their families who are risking their lives and taking this dangerous journey for the better life of their families .

Your little common sense tells me that because they are not in a life threatening situation, they do not qualify as an asylum seeker, because then your life should be in danger at the place they resided. This makes them an economic refugee and therefore not eligible for a refugee status in Finland or EU in general. Do you know in how many places in the world life can be qualified as terrible? Should we all grant them refugee status? Including the homeless from Amsterdam? Or the habitants from the Favelas in Rio?

So you defend with your post the economic refugee, that is ok to defend (free speech) but you should realise that this will give the real asylum-seeker less chance/place (resources are limited) and is therefore ethically incorrect.

Just pointing out the flaw in the arguments here.

Ignorance is not a good start for an argument. UN has been distributing refugees from these camps for decades and countries including Finland have been taking in those refugees for many many years. So they qualify for resettlement.

Those UN redistributed refugees are mostly families or kids without parents and very old people and they arrive by air-plane (here in Finland), these are not the big groups of males that arrive in for example Tornio (worked for them.. UN... myself so I know..)

[sky2]

Same as now, you talk about boats from Libia to italy I guess, (or the few boats from Syria to Turkey), because all other routes don't need boats. how many of the 800.000 refugees in Germany (this year) do you think took a boat, my guess would be not even 1 %.

... and what's your guess, what routes 99% of them took?