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

Many Syrians are University educated.

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.

no, syria =/= the middle east.
syria was destabilised by the civil war, and the civil war occurred via the arab spring trend and the fact that syrian people resented assad's tyranny.
the UK had *nothing* to do with the syrian civil war beginning. the civil war is why "refugees" (and, again, most of these people are not only non-syrian but economic migrants from all over the middle east and africa) are coming - because assad simply wasn't going to give up. so it's assad's fault, or the free syrian army's fault

and I think everybody should pay the same % of tax - in that sense, richer people will STILL pay more. e.g. 20% of £10,000 = £2000. 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000. this is WITHIN a state and concerning citizens. your issue concerns the difference between citizens and non-citizens. europe is not a state. europe is a collection of states. you can't say "some european countries are poor therefore they should pay less" - that assumes we're one single country. we're not. we have no obligation to do anything more than any other nation regardless of money, because we had no hand in starting the syrian civil war. and do you think I even supported the syrian civil war? no. I don't support any interventions in the middle east at all.

ISIS is present in Syria, and ISIS is as powerful as it is largely due to the destabilisation of the ME. We are partly responsible.
.

Explain how. Please explain precisely Western causes of the civil war in Syria and and the rise of ISIS.

Many Syrians are University educated.

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

I think just looking at the student room alone it's got to the point where being 'university educated' means **** all.2

Posted from TSR Mobile

ISIS is present in Syria, and ISIS is as powerful as it is largely due to the destabilisation of the ME. We are partly responsible.

we didn't create ISIS.
and funny, syria was so stable until that civil war happened, which didn't begin with ISIS at all.

You believe that people should pay tax proportional to their income. I believe countries should take refugees proportional to their income. It's exactly the same.

...but countries aren't citizens. countries aren't a part of a world government. also, you said these refugees were "burdens" - taxes aren't burdens in that they result in government services :|

What makes a non-citizen worth less than a citizen? Why is someone sleeping on the streets in Britain a tragedy and a problem that we need to solve, but people in other countries going through things too awful for either of us could even comprehend should be left to get on with it? I don't think a British life is worth more than any other, and people in Syria are suffering far more than anyone in the UK.

Just because somebody went to university does not give them an advantage in things like this. You need to be more specific.

Even you can't be completely oblivious to the argument that too many people in this country are going to university, studying 'mickey mouse degrees', or going getting abysmal marks and not caring just because they know they'll get a degree at the end, even if they know they aren't going to use it.

Anyway, a refugee who is a university graduate shouldn't have an immediate advantage over an other because they may not necessarily be the bigger benefit to society.

How did you arrive @ that conclusion.

.....

WHAT

No. We should have taken more than 10,000 at the start of the war. That doesn't mean we take in all of them.

In the same sense, taking 3000 refugee children is a small number but it is better than nothing.




Where did I say to do nothing?

We are taking more than 10,000... And if there are no domestic issues then the logical conclusion is that those things are not actually problems, so do we have domestic issues to deal with, or are those things not problems?

pure subjective emotion

When did I say that 10,000 needed to be taken in?

I am talking about the 3000 children.

I didn't say there were no domestic issues. So you are just making things up as you are going along.

I said those domestic issues are not significant enough to deny 3000 children refugee status.