"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:59:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules
for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to
take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting
immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just
imagine
what it must be like on Lesbos, etc.

Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the
economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the
UK.




And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the
UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our
fair share".

It's difficult top get ral numbers when they confuse asylum seekers with
refugess and that's just those they know about.


The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers
from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a
decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came
from.

Why are we only concerned with those that can afford the 1000s it costs
to be illegal trasported from their country, what of the poorer that have
to
stay and suffer while the rich are lucky enough to escape from and get
help. ?

Because there will always be plenty of places that couldn't organise
a ****up in a brewery like Zimbabwe and Syria and Tunisia etc.