Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News3 mins ago
David Cameron Under Pressure To Allow In Thousands Of Unaccompanied Migrant Children.
44 Answers
http://
Could this be yet another scam, so that their parents can later enter Britain under a 'right of a family life' appeal?
Could this be yet another scam, so that their parents can later enter Britain under a 'right of a family life' appeal?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The problem here is that if he lets the "unaccompanied" saucepans in, they'll be immediately swamped by a load of money grubbing yooman rights briefs to use public money to force us to let their parents in and they'll rapidly become accompanied by 48 members of their immediate family. It's a French problem Dave, let them deal with it.
As stated , as soon as theyre in thats it and then the families will mysteriously appear and then theyre all in, and on it goes...meanwhile all the liberal leftie do-gooders are have a ball keeeping themselves occupied trashing the UK with their zeal to make sure multiculturalism is stuffed down our throats every which way they can...
“I don't know but would you rather we waited and the children died?”
Why on earth should they die? They are in other EU countries which are safe havens. They are in countries that have foolishly opened their borders to all and sundry and are now seeing the results of that folly. Why should the UK become involved when it refused to join that second biggest fiasco the EU has foisted on its hapless citizens, the Schengen Agreement?
“Has anyone considered the possibility that their parents are dead?”
Very possibly, Eddie (though it would be interesting to track the 3,000 and see just how many of them are indeed orphans). But my point above applies nonetheless.
Just when are people in the UK going to wake up and smell the coffee? The UK was forced to accept “free movement” of people as part of its membership of the EU. It very sensibly (despite the usual accusations of racism, xenophobia and “Little Englanders”) refused to join the Schengen Area. Nations that did are now realising their foolishness (though stable doors and horses spring to mind). So why should the UK pay for the results of their collective idiocy? There is little doubt in my mind that these 3,000 will open the door for another 10,000 at least. We saw last week that Article 8 has now been extended to operate across the channel and gives rights to people who have never set foot here. It’s not a big stretch to see that decision being “logically” extended to people in Syria.
The UK wisely refused to open its borders to mainland Europe. Now mainland Europe has opened its borders to the rest of the world that seems a very good decision.
Why on earth should they die? They are in other EU countries which are safe havens. They are in countries that have foolishly opened their borders to all and sundry and are now seeing the results of that folly. Why should the UK become involved when it refused to join that second biggest fiasco the EU has foisted on its hapless citizens, the Schengen Agreement?
“Has anyone considered the possibility that their parents are dead?”
Very possibly, Eddie (though it would be interesting to track the 3,000 and see just how many of them are indeed orphans). But my point above applies nonetheless.
Just when are people in the UK going to wake up and smell the coffee? The UK was forced to accept “free movement” of people as part of its membership of the EU. It very sensibly (despite the usual accusations of racism, xenophobia and “Little Englanders”) refused to join the Schengen Area. Nations that did are now realising their foolishness (though stable doors and horses spring to mind). So why should the UK pay for the results of their collective idiocy? There is little doubt in my mind that these 3,000 will open the door for another 10,000 at least. We saw last week that Article 8 has now been extended to operate across the channel and gives rights to people who have never set foot here. It’s not a big stretch to see that decision being “logically” extended to people in Syria.
The UK wisely refused to open its borders to mainland Europe. Now mainland Europe has opened its borders to the rest of the world that seems a very good decision.
A couple of problems with this.
1) As pointed out this is likely to be a scam and we will be swamped with scum 'ooman rights lawyers on taxpayers money getting in their(extended) families. A double whammy for the British taxpayer.
2) DC is under pressure. From whom? Strikes me there is a loudmouthed minority, often from foreigners that are listened to above the silent Majority.
3) Anyone in Europe is in a safe country. That should be the end of it.
4) We are looking at taking from the Syrian camps so I would assume kids come first.
5) Bringing in Muslim kids will require Muslim foster and adoptive parents. Are there sufficient lining up to take on the responsibility?
1) As pointed out this is likely to be a scam and we will be swamped with scum 'ooman rights lawyers on taxpayers money getting in their(extended) families. A double whammy for the British taxpayer.
2) DC is under pressure. From whom? Strikes me there is a loudmouthed minority, often from foreigners that are listened to above the silent Majority.
3) Anyone in Europe is in a safe country. That should be the end of it.
4) We are looking at taking from the Syrian camps so I would assume kids come first.
5) Bringing in Muslim kids will require Muslim foster and adoptive parents. Are there sufficient lining up to take on the responsibility?
Latest Posts
Spectator - Christmas Crossword -...
Crosswords22 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Society & Culture32 mins ago
Crosswords34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.