What would "Dads Army" do and deal with the Migrants by the tunnel

Are you far more concerned about refugees being in the UK?

In my opinion what really should be happening is that the US should be doing more to help fight IS.
So should this country and others.

But they'd never get safely across the Atlantic in those leaky trafficker boats that sink in the Med. The US would have to transport them over the pond - I can't see them doing that. The boats would be considered to be invading the ports the refugees were leaving, and shelled. A grand excuse for ISIS to say that the US were aggressors.

The US could transport refugees from Europe

of course the US takes migrants But you can't make people go to America when they are bent on settling in Europe. They are not mindless animals to be shipped across in crates!

The EU needs to get itself together to ensure a fair distribution of migrants. There is room for them. Many of them will be an asset.

Of course they could.
And the whole situation in the whole region is so complicated.

I wonder if there will be more concentration of world efforts to over-power IS now they have proved themselves determined to destroy every bit of 'other faith' history. (Temple in Palmyra) These things can have more power to move governments into action than the loss of human life.

There are many issues involved in this conflict. Displaced people or those who displace themselves and where they aim for is only one of them. I have to disagree with vamps I'm afraid. There simply isn't the infrastructure to just absorb the people that choose to head for the UK. I'm sure we can argue this to kingdom come though and won't agree.

jingle, quite possibly they choose Europe because this is as far as they can get, they can't take those boats across the pacific, they can't hop on a plane

The pacific?

I think Annie means the Atlantic.

Thank you Petra,

Why not go East?

Pogs has made a pertinent point that often occurs to me as well, I think the whole world needs to be involved in relocating refugees. I fully accept that many are just that, refugees fleeing for their lives, the recent pictures of those massing on the border of Macedonia showing very distressed children were particularly upsetting. The lines are blurred by the fact that among those leaving their homelands, some will be economic migrants and I just don't think that Europe can be expected to absorb all of those as well, and whilst the people at Calais might not number that many at any one time, they will indeed keep coming and what might appear to be a trickle at the moment could indeed become a massive surge as time goes by. I hasten to add that I am not making the assumption that all those at Calais are economic migrants, but some will be, and if they destroy their papers then it's pretty hard to make a judgement about individual situations.

Britain has often been accused by our European counterparts of wishing to cherry pick the terms and conditions of our member ship to the EU, but I think the migration crisis illustrates the disconnect among member states on how to deal with the seismic shift of populations in Africa and the Middle East. Undoubtedly Germany is taking more than their fair share 800,000 I believe this year and whilst it is a large country and no doubt that number can be distributed around, it's the year on year factor that is the imponderable, will that number, or possibly more arrive every year, is it sustainable to keep accommodating them and if they are economic migrants, what about the countries they leave behind with presumably aging populations with fewer and fewer young people to support them.

Germany is of course the richest country in the EU. Smaller Eastern Europe countries having varying attitudes I believe Slovenia has insisted they will only take a couple of hundred, Christians only as they don't have any mosques in their country and don't feel that Muslims would therefore be catered for. Of course, as yet, they don't have the successful economies of those in Western Europe, some of their reluctance to take more seems to be rooted in their desire to remain mono cultures,white and Christian.

As a country we have been criticised by our European partners for taking very few refugees and possibly they have a point, but we have added 3 million to our population in the past few years and anyone who lives in an urban area will know that we are struggling with housing and school places at the moment. They Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Calais have pointed out that many of the migrants perceive Britain as an El Dorado and that we should change that perception. There are many countries around the world that are still under populated, New Zealand, Australia, Canada. I was in Argentina a couple of years ago a huge country with only 40 million, suffering for a terminally mismanaged economy I know, it should be as rich as Canada it has a lot of natural resource and could be deemed to be under populated. I'm in agreement with POGS why do we not ask more of countries such as Saudi Arabia who could certainly give refuge to some of their fellow Muslims and China who are a constant presence in Africa these days

theconversation.com/fences-in-calais-protect-ministers-not-refugees-46366

This tells you where they go. Not many want to come to the UK, so I do not know what all the fuss is about.
We have lost far more money by stopping lorries because of the fear of refugees swamping our country than it would have cost to let all of them through.

Very wise comments Terribull.

So people fleeing from IS should go to Saudi Arabia to get killed? That'll solve the refugee problem.

Is there any evidence to suggest that they would be killed in Saudi Arabia? They would of course have to observe the draconian laws there and that not might suit some Muslims with more liberal attitudes, I don't for one moment assume they all have the same mind set. However, it might be a more agreeable society for those such as the young man who was taken in by the Calais family given his attitude towards the daughter of the house which would indicate that he and others with that strict conservative Muslim outlook, might not adapt happily to a freer western society.

Giving alms - one of the five pillars Islam. What greater way is there to express this than taking in people who have been displaced by war.

Extremes again. Saudi Arabia. Ignore the other 209 countries or however many they are.

We have lost far more money by stopping lorries because of the fear of refugees swamping our country than it would have cost to let all of them through

Costs for the first few days, or for their lifetimes?

Come on.

Countries such as Slovenia may well be recovering still from their own conflict and declaring itself independent . The wars in the former Yugoslavia were very traumatic and that caused a huge refugee problem - which is still ongoing.
Pakistan took 6 million Afghan refugees, however many have been 'encouraged' to return.
There are thousands more refugees dispersed around the world.

According to the Salvation Army website:

^AUSTRALIA: REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Australia is in the top three countries for resettlement of refugees. The USA, Canada and Australia provide 90 percent of global resettlement places. In 2012, asylum seeker applications in Australia accounted for just over 3 percent of the global share^

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jun/18/59m-people-displaced-war-violence-persecution-says-un

It is a massive global problem which needs more than a country by country approach.

In answer to the OP, Dad's Army just wouldn't be able to cope.

I just started a rather sarcastic post about standing room only in Western Europe but thought it may be taken too seriously so I'd just like to say I agree with TerriBull.

Perhaps a solution would be for the EU and the other richer nations (ALL of them) to send as much support as is needed to house, clothe and feed the refugees at their first landfall in a safe country (such as Turkey, Greece and Italy). Then, when (hopefully) sanity returns to the countries from which they have fled, they will be able to return home more easily and rebuild their own countries. Anyone who wishes to progress from the refugee settlements will then be known as economic migrants. I know that in the past whole new cities have grown from this solution and borders have moved, but it seems like the least messy option. I think Mr Cameron is among those with this idea which is why he's sent the cruise ship.

"According to the UN more than 4m people have fled to Syria’s immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq and a further 6.5 million are internally displaced within Syria. Last year just 138,000 Syrians made it to Europe. European countries have pledged to resettle a further 33,000 Syrian refugees. The UK has offered shelter to just 187 of them.

British politicians seem happy to ignore this context. The view seems to be that everyone displaced by conflict and poverty is heading for the UK. In reality only a few thousand migrants have reached Calais. That’s about 1% of the more than 200,000 people who have landed in Italy and Greece so far this year."

Dad's Army wouldn't have a problem. They really do not all want to come here and never have. However, it's amazing how many people have been taken in by all the bullsh*t in the media.

Soon, if they are allowed to work when they are here, they will not cost us anything. Refugees contribute to the public purse, not take from it.