Illegal Immigrant Crisis: Hungarian Prime Minister says Europe in grip of madness

[peteyt]

Bringing them here won't fix the problem and it will probably bring more problems here if anything. I have no problem with allowing people to come to this country but I believe we are already too open and should let less people in not more. We have our own problems to deal with and while they might not be big compared to the situations overseas, we still need to deal with them

[abc]

Bringing them here won't fix the problem and it will probably bring more problems here if anything. I have no problem with allowing people to come to this country but I believe we are already too open and should let less people in not more. We have our own problems to deal with and while they might not be big compared to the situations overseas, we still need to deal with them

We are way less open than many European countries like Germany. If we didn't cause problems in these peoples countries then we wouldn't have to "deal with them".

[-:Undertaker:-]

We voted for these leaders. You may disagree with our current electoral system but we voted for these leaders. These leaders take decisions on our behalf (even if we disagree with it) and we are the ones who need to live with the consequences. It is wrong to say we voted for these leaders, the leaders screwed up but the public shouldn't be affected by any negative actions. If we benefit from our leaders actions then we should suffer from it too.

We voted for our leaders, that is correct. But those parties which were elected into the Commons chamber campaigned on the basis of specifically lowering legal immigration into this country (all made this pledge) and made no reference to what is now happening which is the end of the internationally agreed rule for asylum seekers which is that they claim safety in the first country they reach which is safe, ie the Republic of Turkey which is a first world country and a member of NATO. In much the same way, the British people did not vote for this country to be a part of the EU Schengen Area which is now de facto happening with us opting into this bizzare plan to take growing numbers of people who have no place in northern European countries.

The British people did not vote for illegal immigrants in their thousands to be allowed into this country against long-standing asylum conventions.

[abc]

We voted for our leaders, that is correct. But those parties which were elected into the Commons chamber campaigned on the basis of specifically lowering legal immigration into this country (all made this pledge) and made no reference to what is now happening which is the end of the internationally agreed rule for asylum seekers which is that they claim safety in the first country they reach which is safe, ie the Republic of Turkey which is a first world country and a member of NATO. In much the same way, the British people did not vote for this country to be a part of the EU Schengen Area which is now de facto happening with us opting into this bizzare plan to take growing numbers of people who have no place in northern European countries.

The British people did not vote for illegal immigrants in their thousands to be allowed into this country against long-standing asylum conventions.

What many people do not realise is that the UK has majorly clamped down on UK migrants. It is very difficult for someone to come to this country and get a permanent residence and citizenship is even more difficult. The length of visas given to foreign workers (non-EU) is such that they can never qualify for permanent residence or citizenship. So in that sense the government has worked towards its pledge of lowering legal migrants.

However this situation has arisen because we decided to poke our nose everywhere and destroy their countries (directly and indirectly) and we must therefore take our fair share of the responsibility. Turkey can no way take in every refugee, that is ridiculous. The matter at hand is that all countries take their fair share of the refugees. What you do not realise is that many European countries who did not contribute to destroying these refugees countries are still helping them, yet this country which did directly contribute doesn't want to? Its ridiculous.

We voted for politicians, who make decisions on behalf of the country (whether we agree or disagree with them) and we must take responsibility. Gosh this is 2015, the world is a free world. How can we let borders decide who suffers and who lives with benefits? We are all humans, lets treat each other like one. We need to show empathy, compassion and emotion. Borders should no longer decide who suffers and who is OK. We do not decide which country we are born in.

made no reference to what is now happening which is the end of the internationally agreed rule for asylum seekers which is that they claim safety in the first country they reach which is safe, ie the Republic of Turkey which is a first world country and a member of NATO.

Further to my post above, let me ask you this. Say UK was the first 'safe' country and we were geographically located where Turkey is. Would you be happy with us taking in all of these refugees or would you appeal to the rest of Europe (and countries who caused this situation) to take their fair share?

I would be very interested to see your opinion on this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What many people do not realise is that the UK has majorly clamped down on UK migrants. It is very difficult for someone to come to this country and get a permanent residence and citizenship is even more difficult. The length of visas given to foreign workers (non-EU) is such that they can never qualify for permanent residence or citizenship. So in that sense the government has worked towards its pledge of lowering legal migrants.

Immigration levels ran at their highest levels ever this year in 2015.

The government has done the polar opposite of what it was elected and pledged to do.

However this situation has arisen because we decided to poke our nose everywhere and destroy their countries (directly and indirectly) and we must therefore take our fair share of the responsibility. Turkey can no way take in every refugee, that is ridiculous. The matter at hand is that all countries take their fair share of the refugees. What you do not realise is that many European countries who did not contribute to destroying these refugees countries are still helping them, yet this country which did directly contribute doesn't want to? Its ridiculous.

What other countries decide to do isn't how British policy should be followed. Britain is following the existing agreements in regards to asylum seekers and legal asylum as the rules have stood for many years, it is other European nations which are breaking those agreements. In any case, we are not alone in this as Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and now even Austria are all saying that enough is enough and just because Germany has decided it will hand out passports like confetti does not mean everybody else should suffer the consequences especially when they were not consulted on changing (or dropping) Schengen visa rules. In addition to this, Britain is not even a member of the Schengen Area.

British policy should be on what benefits this country and what the people who live here want.

We voted for politicians, who make decisions on behalf of the country (whether we agree or disagree with them) and we must take responsibility. Gosh this is 2015, the world is a free world. How can we let borders decide who suffers and who lives with benefits? We are all humans, lets treat each other like one. We need to show empathy, compassion and emotion. Borders should no longer decide who suffers and who is OK. We do not decide which country we are born in.

That all sounds very nice but that isn't realistic. Do you not understand or grasp that nationhood and identity are important factors in determining often why a country or civilisation is successful and wealthy? Do you not understand that by simply opening the borders up to anybody and everyone, you'd invite millions of different people into this country which would result in civil war and sectarianism?

All I can say is look at Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. The two groups in Northern Ireland, the protestants and the catholics, have been at one anothers throats for hundreds and hundreds of years despite speaking the same language, being of the same ethnic group, sharing the same culture. Yet because of a slight religous difference between two schools of the same religion, the island has been soaked in blood for hundreds of years and even now sectarianism is just around the corner in everyday life.

Borders matter and so does culture. Why should European nations and European people have their culture extinguished or diluted?

Further to my post above, let me ask you this. Say UK was the first 'safe' country and we were geographically located where Turkey is. Would you be happy with us taking in all of these refugees or would you appeal to the rest of Europe (and countries who caused this situation) to take their fair share?

It would depend on the context and the neighbour, say if there were a crisis in the French Republic then I would consider taking in a certain number.

[FlyingJesus]

The problems in Ireland have their roots in military invasion, not asylum seekers. Culture isn't affected by people who want to join our culture, which is literally what these people are wanting to come here for

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problems in Ireland have their roots in military invasion

And masses of different people coming over in migration waves/invasions.

not asylum seekers. Culture isn't affected by people who want to join our culture, which is literally what these people are wanting to come here for

Don't confuse people coming to wealthy countries for better living standards as the same as those who wish to integrate/hold western values.

The Iranian Revolution is the perfect example that economic motives are separate to culture.

[FlyingJesus]

And masses of different people coming over in migration waves/invasions.

No, just the fact that those people were forcibly displacing the natives and enforcing rule over them. Not the same as modern immigration in any way at all, no matter how you spin it

Don't confuse people coming to wealthy countries for better living standards as the same as those who wish to integrate/hold western values.

The Iranian Revolution is the perfect example that economic motives are separate to culture.

Trying to escape a place where the lives of you and your family is not an economic motive. They are wanting to escape the culture they were born into, not spread it

[AgnesIO]

That said, other European countries shouldn't be taking these people either. You'll have noticed on news outlets like the BBC and Sky News they are being described as 'migrants' which is factually incorrect. A migrant is someone like your dad and my dad who will get a visa and go and work in Canada or Singapore. In much the same way, a genuine asylum seeker is somebody who flees to the first safe country they reach (because if your life is geninely in danger you really aren't picky you are just glad to be in safety). The hoardes coming into Europe and passing safe countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt are simply illegal immigrants.

Ahhh, I see. You must be referring to the 2,000,000 who have stopped in Turkey, or the 1,000,000 who have stopped in Lebanon, or perhaps the ones you are referring to are the 1,400,000 in Jordan. Maybe, in actual fact, you are referring to the 250,000 in Iraq..

These people are fleeing a war - nobody flees to Iraq for the sake of it, Dan.

Then you - ignorantly, I must say - forget that 10% of Syrian's are Christian, and then there are the 13% whom are Shia Muslim's, and therefore not welcomed in most Middle Eastern states - oh look, suddenly 1 in 4 refugees have a problem in stopping in the first so-called 'safe' country.

But then, to be honest, referring to Christian values is laughable in a country that has lost vast swath's of any values that may have existed 50 years ago.

I also find it laughable that you are trying to blame the media for this uproar. Is that the same media that has been fighting against these people for months on end? The same media that has been happy to describe them as a 'swarm'? Oh, that media. Of course.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's one of the many reported videos of the lovely illegal immigrants in Greece that the media won't show.

Why should the Greek people and the peoples of Europe have to put up with this?

No, just the fact that those people were forcibly displacing the natives and enforcing rule over them. Not the same as modern immigration in any way at all, no matter how you spin it

It doesn't matter how they were let in, it is all about numbers and our ability to integrate people.

If you have too many coming in at once, as we have with 700,000+ a year, then you cannot accomodate people. End of story.

Trying to escape a place where the lives of you and your family is not an economic motive. They are wanting to escape the culture they were born into, not spread it

I am afraid it is. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this, but illegals are acually moving through safe countries such as the Hellenic Republic and even Italy and Austria in order to reach Germany. You know this, I know this and that defies the agreements on asylum.

The point from which you leave a safe country like NATO member Turkey and try to get to a wealthier country means you cease to be a refugee.

I have also read stories similar to what the video above shows which is the illegal immigrants turning away food or throwing it on the floor for various reasons, some cited as halal. And yet despite the ghettoisation of our cities already, you make the hiliarious claim they're just the same as we westerners. Ha ha ha!

As one of the videos above alludes to and as does another I have seen, there have been street fights and riots between different groups such as the Afghans against the Iraqis and god knows what else. And yet, we're importing these tribal cultures into our society and they are - surprise surprise - bringing the violence.

Ahhh, I see. You must be referring to the 2,000,000 who have stopped in Turkey, or the 1,000,000 who have stopped in Lebanon, or perhaps the ones you are referring to are the 1,400,000 in Jordan. Maybe, in actual fact, you are referring to the 250,000 in Iraq..

These people are fleeing a war - nobody flees to Iraq for the sake of it, Dan.

I do not deny people are fleeing a warzone, initially. I do dispute the fact that so-called asylum seekers are in danger in countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and Greece because they are simply not. And I repeat, moving for economic reasons means they then cease to be genuine refugees.

Then you - ignorantly, I must say - forget that 10% of Syrian's are Christian, and then there are the 13% whom are Shia Muslim's, and therefore not welcomed in most Middle Eastern states - oh look, suddenly 1 in 4 refugees have a problem in stopping in the first so-called 'safe' country.

But then, to be honest, referring to Christian values is laughable in a country that has lost vast swath's of any values that may have existed 50 years ago.

We live in the afterglow of a Christian society, or do you think islamic society is exactly the same as our own? Is that your claim?

I also find it laughable that you are trying to blame the media for this uproar. Is that the same media that has been fighting against these people for months on end? The same media that has been happy to describe them as a 'swarm'? Oh, that media. Of course.

The media didn't describe them as a swarm. That bloke you voted for did, David Cameron.