Or agreement, Chris.

Or for someone to clock you one.

I'm currently studying the treatment of enemy aliens during WW2 (internment and all that jazz) for my dissertation. The story of refugees who escaped to France is just terrible. Having made such a dangerous journey, and having once had hope, they often ended back where they came from, or worse. But in the years leading up to WW2 there were decent vetting processes conducted by the various refugee bodies which had sprung up. They testified to the character and integrity of individuals and were responsible for their welfare. We have no such official, semi-official, or voluntary infrastructure to deal with the issues facing us today.

Many have recently contrasted out present hard-nosed attitude with our willingness to take in huge numbers during the refugee crisis of the '30s. Such comparisons are invalid. Where we once had systems of security and sound knowledge of the backgrounds of such people, we now have none. And as it was back then, the trojan horse threat is real. All too real.

This thread is about refugees primarily,not economic migrants or "immigrants".Your take on my motivations is, to use your phrase "imaginary",but on your part.

What I mean is that a significant number of those trying to come here or potentially trying to,are refugees,ie those from Syria.But that a significant number of people wishing to come here are not,but are rather economic migrants.I don't propose illegal entry to the UK for economic migrants or wholesale legal entry.I do propose admission to refugees who qualify under the Convention.The refugees tend IMO to get tarred wholesale with being the same as economic migrants and demonised as such.

I think the distinction between the two is more readily definable than Stirling does and certainly not reasonable to describe an alternate view to his as "nonsense".Its a lot more arguable than that.

As Kermit posted earlier,the UN Convention defines a refugee as:

"someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."

Leaving aside questions of making application in the first "safe place" reached (which I agree with) and questions of countries agreeing to share the load from mass fleeings (ie like that from Vietnam after the Vietnam war),refugees should be granted asylum.

When the Iron Curtain was up,there was no hesitation in suggesting people fleeing from Eastern Europe were refugees fleeing persecution on say political grounds.

If you take Syria, we acknowledge the country is in civil war,we acknowledge ISIS are filth who must be opposed and carry out horrendous acts.Seems to me in those circumstances,bit hard to say people fleeing Syria aren't refugees in the same way we've defined refugees for more than 60 years.

As for the link, that related directly to posts in the thread about comparisons with Jewish refugees in the 30's and to Stirling's comment in response to an earlier post that "that does stop them being refugees".I think there are interesting comparisons with how Jewish refugees were regarded in some quarters as ""aliens" who mustn't be allowed to "flood here" rather than the genuine refugees they plainly were.If you or Stirling don't agree,fair enough.

Edited by legaleagle (24 Aug 2015 10.42pm)

Its the UN Convention from 64 years ago, endorsed by a Protocol in 1967.It is the current internationally accepted and signed up to definition and that by which the UK bases determination of applications for asylum,so I'm hardly plucking a random one .I accept completely its connotations may bear no relevance to the attitudes of some on here,it may be the majority on here.They do bear some relevance to some on here.

Edited by legaleagle (24 Aug 2015 11.14pm)

That's mainly because they have the 'tory' gene and are hard working and have entrepreneurial flair...

Pro USA & Israel