Refugees

Yes eloethan airlines can't take passengers without proper documentation.

I was looking at an Australian site whose contributors apparently know a lot about migration and who seem to be trying to tackle some of the misinformation and widespread animosity directed towards immigrants (surprising really since all but the aboriginal Australians are themselves descended from immigrants).

There is reference to the fact that there are millions of refugees across the world and a substantial number of them are stuck in very basic and often fairly squalid refugee camps where they may have spent all their lives and where they are likely to end their lives. It was also pointed out that most refugees are hosted by poor countries. For instance, there are apparently 500,000 in Kenya, 1.7 million in Pakistan, 1 million in Iran and 400,00 in Jordan. Sadly, 1.4 million fled the turmoil in Iraq and are now stranded in the horror that is Syria.

I'm not an expert on migration and I have no immediate knowledge as to why people use the methods they do to leave their countries or indeed why they decide to leave everything they have ever known to undertake perilous journeys with no guarantee of where they will end up. I think an educated guess might be that they are desperate. Many of these people have probably never travelled far or had passports and may not even have birth certificates and other official documentation that we take for granted in this country. If you're living in one of the many areas in Syria that are being bombarded by government forces, American/UK forces, ISIS and possibly other disparate elements, unless you live near a major city which is functioning fairly normally, it is probably almost impossible to obtain these papers and a passport. I also seem to recall that penalties were introduced to prevent airlines from allowing passengers without the proper visas to travel to countries that have strict visa requirements.

No, what I meant was are the refugees we see this week on the news escaping directly from Syria or had they escaped previously and are now leaving the refugee camps? I wasn't sure.

I put that same link on myself on another thread, it explains the situation clearly, thanks for reinforcing it djen.
I honestly don't think that many people realised the scale of the crisis until a few people (and it is a few in comparison) started seeking refuge in Europe.

not nice, badly behaved ???

Ye gods stb do you have any idea of what it's like in Syria?

Criticised for using the word "they" now. That's new.

www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

Why should a man bring his parents, aunt , cousin? Perhaps parents don 'to want to travel by boat, perhaps female relatives are single women

I do know a little bit about the refugee camps in Turkey having supported a charity there for Syrian refugees for quite some time now. But thank you for the information about how 'they' live anyway.

I was going to ask if the present surge of refugees have escaped directly from Syria or have exited the refugee camps in other countries.

Well, of course they won't be, but I was just responding to people who keep posting about the men sending for their families once they get settled, as if they are emigrating. They won't be able to phone home, send money and get their families on the next plane out of a war zone!

Sadly, though, Jane10 could have a point; through the charity I have contact with I have heard some horror stories about how the men have been preventing practical help getting through to their women and children in refugee camps in Turkey.

They do not live like we do, rose. They are not just left in their own homes far from extended families.
If they have to move away from their villages many of them will be in refugee camps which are not very savoury places anyway, but better than staying in Syria. From Syria, many of them have gone to Turkey. The men then go the rest of the way to Europe to find somewhere to live, then send for their families.
They do not have £5000 for each member of their family to pay the traffickers.

Not necessarily married but with parents, aunts, cousins? Mind you, remember the hoo-hah about immigrants being given extra benefits to send 'home' to their families? Many people in the UK resent/resented that. I don't know if it has been stopped.

Yes, what has all this to do with the Gurkhas? Have we been infiltrated by Joanna Lumley?

What on earth has the Gurkhas to do with this ?

Why assume all these men are married ?

djen I am not convinced by the argument that the men can send for their womenfolk and children once they become settled, unless of course their families are already safe in refugee camps. To be left behind in the horror that is Syria must be terrifying for women and children with no man to look out for you.
And the threat comes from not just one faction.

This is another horror story - the role of these traffickers is sickening.

Correct me if I am wrong but I understand there are Ghurka units in the British, Nepalese and Indian armies. We see them mostly as part of our armed forces and they have played a massive in WWII as well as subsequent conflicts in which the UK was involved.
I don't see the relevance of referring to them in this context.

At least they have managed to round up some traffickers now after today's atrocities.
It makes you wonder why they did not do it earlier.

The Ghurkas? Are you serious, soontobe?

I'm amazed at your ignorance, please get a reality check

I just love that phrase 'the badly behaved people', it's a bit like saying Hitler was 'a very naughty boy.'

Jane10, how do you think these men are going to get arms ? Who will train them? Do you really believe they can find guns, bombs etc and the enemy will agree to a cease fire whilst these men form an army and train?

I agree with Durhamjen, that is the way it works in most refugee situations. The men leave in an attempt to find a better life and if they succeed they send for their families. When you consider the journey they have to make, it makes sense for the young, fit men to be the ones to go. Obviously it is no fun for the women left behind to look after children and old people but then neither is a trip across the Med on a leaky boat. The point about 'why don't they stay and fight for their country' which someone makes above is not valid because many of these men have already served their time in the army, particularly in Eritrea.

I do think we have to differentiate between refugees and economic migrants. Lindsay Hillson (I think that's right) on channel 4 news tonight said she had found that most of the migrants are economic ones, not refugees. She may have been speaking of a specific route because obviously many of the poor souls we see on our screens certainly are refugees escaping from tyranny in their own countries. She went on to say that the whole thing is total chaos and no-one is really taking responsibility for anything.

I don't know what the answer is but someone has to come up with something soon. Going after the traffickers makes the most sense but that line of action does not improve the actual situation in these countries. My personal view is that the west should never have interfered in the first place, upsetting the status quo that had existed for centuries, albeit an undemocratic status quo. Democracy is not a 'one size fits all'.

Do they parachute back in and join the resistance Soon? That sort of negates them leaving in the first place.

Same sort of the thing as the Ghurkas?

'The badly behaved people could fight each other' like my DGC today.

Soontobe. So who's army would these refugees be fighting for. Baring in mind that they have to get status in a country, let alone join that countries army.

'The badly behaved people could fight each other' - honestly, I can't believe someone is that naive...