Tory MP's vote AGAINST allowing 3000 refugee children into the UK

This is a terrible argument.

What you are saying comes down to: unless we can solve all of the world's problems, we shouldn't even attempt to partially solve any of the world's problems.

3000 children fleeing war and all manner of severe distress/trauma given a better life is 3000 children whose lives we have helped. Maybe this doesn't mean anything to you, but that doesn't degrade the argument that where we can help especially vulnerable people, we should.

...but will be less likely to become thugs.

This is an act of kindness - it might stop children's families paying people traffickers to help them make dangerous crossings into Europe.

If you support it, you are basically giving a green light to families paying people traffickers to get their children into Europe in the hope that, on being granted asylum, the rest of the family will be able to join.

Except people are starving on the streets.

Really? How many people starved to death last year in the UK?

As far as know, a refugee child has no right to sponsor their family to move to the UK. So that is wrong.

I didn't say they were equivalent.

I said the refusal to provide refuge to Jews led to millions being murdered when at least some more lives could have been saved.

That is exactly what it does.

"Our affairs are not in order" is just an appeal to emotion. You have not had one fact so far to support it so I have no reason to believe it .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36134837

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/tories-vote-against-accepting-3000-child-refugees

Was surprised not to see this thread already, although I may have missed it, it seems the Tory powers that be on here have nothing to say.

So we should have taken on all the Jews in Europe despite that being about 20pc of the population of the UK. Further, the two situations are not comparable, the children being refused are those in Europe, not in the middle East; those that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the cause of their displacement, not about to be put on a train to go do hard labour and be killed.



So you're saying that having public services failing the population and homeless people on the street is actually a perfectly good thing and we should do nothing to improve said services and reduce homelessness?

Posted from TSR Mobile

There's plenty of jobs around.

Right?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, they're not filled. There's a shortage of curry chefs. English people like to eat curry, and there's not enough chefs for the market demand.

So you're saying that we should employ children who probably don't even know how to cook a curry as curry chefs?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I was answering your doubt about there being a lack of jobs, read back on the comment trail.

Many Syrians are University educated.

hm, well, let's wonder: how many people have portugal taken?
actually, this question is two sided:
1) portugal *will* take immigrants (er I mean refugees, lmao)
2) but these "refugees" don't go there because their welfare state is smaller so they'll get less

I say the UK shouldn't take a single migrant more from the middle east/africa until these poorer states get filled up first
because it is stupid to expect the countries with the biggest welfare states to take the most migrants - **** this - this is beyond belief
if poland isn't going to take any, then why the **** should we? I thought the EU was about uniting countries?
poland's perfectly happy filling up our country with theirs, but when it's a country filling up *their* country then suddenly it's not okay?

**** these useless hypocritical countries, and **** the EU

It's not remotely relevant how many other countries have taken. Everyone else being an ******** isn't justification for us being one.

Why is it stupid to expect the richest countries to bear most of the burden? I think you've got that a bit backwards.

you're saying we *deserve* having burdens because we got richer than the poorer countries? I'm sorry but that's insane. the UK doesn't *deserve* any burden that we didn't cause. you cannot sit here and tell me that the UK should be condemned to take burdens for no reason at all just because we have more money.

this is the thing you don't understand: refugees shouldn't come only to rich countries; they should go to the poorer countries first, if they really are "refugees" who only care about surviving, not about a ****ing welfare state.

if they are real refugeees, they *should* go to eastern europe first and stay there. when those countries get filled, then MAYBE we should take in actual refugees, but right now, you are doing nothing but convincing me that these are ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. if poland is willing to play realpolitik then we have ever ****ing right to do so as well. this money is our money and money is not a bad thing or a burden-attractor. **** that.

Well unfortunately, the UK (and allies) did cause it by destabilising the Middle-East.

That aside, do you also believe that richer people shouldn't pay more tax than poorer people?