Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

What are the benefits to the UK of taking in refugees?

If we're going to invest money into accommodating them and giving them food and every thing, what benefit do we get? How will they contribute to and improve Britain? Just trying to do a cost-benefit analysis here.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

TheIr0nDuke

They don't. It's just an opportunity to virtue signal that leftists won't pass up.

Reply 2

gladders

Original post by TheIr0nDuke

They don't. It's just an opportunity to virtue signal that leftists won't pass up.

Do you consider giving money to charity virtue signalling too?

Reply 3

MildredMalone

Maybe we shoild re-open the coalmines and send the economic migrants down there? They're basically surplus people, so the danger aspect doesn't matter.

But seriously, we shouldn't take "refugees" nor should we be invovled in their home nations.

Reply 4

oShahpo

Saving human lives is the greatest benefit we can get out of this. Not to mention that some of the most brilliant people in the universe had been refugees, e.g. Einstein.

Reply 5

TheIr0nDuke

Original post by gladders

Do you consider giving money to charity virtue signalling too?

Totally different but if anonymous, no.

Preaching about it on the other hand, yes.

Reply 6

TercioOfParma

Diversity and Cultural Enrichment.

Reply 7

username2313507

The media told me they're all doctors, engineers and lawyers.

UK should be like Germany and accept 1m+ refugees so they get as much benefit as possible!

Reply 8

nexttimeigetvpn

it lays the pressure off Greece/Italy/Turkey, which are being flooded with these refugees, and if Greece and Italy suffer economically, so will we.

Reply 9

Pulse.

None whatsoever apart from moral considerations which have no bearing on national interest and what's best for the country. There are endless ways we can help refugees, taking them in is the wrong solution.

In response to all other replies to this thread: it's not our problem. The sooner people realise this simple fact, the better for everyone.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 10

Saylo66

Original post by oShahpo

Saving human lives is the greatest benefit we can get out of this. .

Is it worth losing the lives of our own people to save theirs though? There have been huge terrorist attacks from some of these 'refugees' in European countries

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 11

MrsSheldonCooper

Original post by oShahpo

Saving human lives is the greatest benefit we can get out of this. Not to mention that some of the most brilliant people in the universe had been refugees, e.g. Einstein.

Einstein technically wasn't a refugee. He was already in America by the time Hitler came to power and he then decided to stay.

Reply 12

user 42005

The main argument of course is the moral dynamic, in that we shouldn't be abandoning these people to be killed by IS. The notion that accepting 1.5m+ refugees into our own society being best way to address this issue is, however, terribly misjudged. There are far better ways in which to deal with this, such as providing additional funds to the surrounding nations where the refugees will integrate better, and most importantly of all destroying IS for good to stop the migration in the first place. I fear that no matter what we do though our actions will have ill consequences. If we get militarily involved then the West gets accused of being excessively interventionalist, if we don't get involved then we get accused of standing idly by whilst abuses of human rights are committed. IS weren't the first terror group and they won't be the last, it seems that the factionalism of the Middle East is a perpetual problem that won't disappear as long as religion plays such a prominent role in society.

And to those who are comparing Einstein to these refugees, or just WW2 refugees in general, the circumstances are entirely different. It isn't refugees that people are opposed to, it's the Islamic culture they bring with them. WW2 refugees were European so it was much easier for them to integrate into society, as opposed to Syrian refugees today.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 13

DarkMagic

Sometimes doing the right thing is its own reward.

Why should someone be denied the opportunity to seek out a better life for them and their family?

Plus, people are more likely to turn to extremism if they have no other option.

Reply 14

richpanda

Whilst I take a firm anti-refugee stance, I do feel awful for the true refugees such as the Yazidis, or the displaced families. Not the 16-25 year old frustrated young men. But we are on the other side of the world to them, and there is no completely compelling reason as to why the countries surrounding Syria couldn't take them all in.

To be completely honest, the only reason why any refugee from the Middle East comes to Britain is due to our generous welfare state. That's the truth.

Reply 15

Arkasia

Original post by Foo.mp3

• Legal: Compliance with international agreements regarding asylum seekers (if/when these exist vs. 'first safe country' :wink:

• Ethical: Satisfying the collective conscience regarding 'taking our fare share' and helping to mitigate human suffering

• Economic: The well educated/highly skilled/hard working boost diversity, dynamism, and productivity in the economy

• Social: The ethno-culturally compatible, socially minded, add to the sense of cultural enrichment and 'one world' fraternity

Summary: We have a legal and ethical duty to accept refugees, but these must be people who are willing and able to integrate and make a net contribution. Unfortunately non-EU migrants presently cost the exchequer (HM Treasury) net £15,000,000,000 p.a. and 50-75% of Muslims in the UK are economically inactive, and many make little/no effort to integrate/learn our language

Muslims are 3.25 times, and Black people 7 times, overrepresented in our prison population, and the majority of street crime (including knife/gun crime) is perpetrated by black people in London - yet this demographic constitutes just 13% of the population. As a Londoner, I know I am not alone in being sick to death of seeing BME yoots doing everything from engaging in antisocial/threatening behaviour to literally running riot e.g. the recent Hyde Park knife attacks, and the London Riots of 2011

I have, and will always, point to the prescience of The Clash of Civilisations thesis of international relations in the context of inexorable trends/the irrefutable primacy of our tribal-civilisational politics of identity. A learned social scientist and humanitarian who cares about the fate of his family/friends/community/country/civilisation can, in this context, only support limited, discerning inter-civilisational immigration, going forward (e.g. selective, according to ethno-cultural comparability criteria)

Apparently I was tagged in this

Reply 16

DanGG

They are refugees until they leave a relatively safe country (like Turkey/Greece) for economic reasons. All the 800,000 allowed into Germany were economic migrants, because the minute they step on Greek/Turkish territory, they are not in danger of losing their life, and their move to Germany was either for better jobs (economic, not safety reasons), better quality of life (again, not life threatening reasons) etc, etc.

Reply 17

999tigger

Original post by Ladbants

As one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world its a sign of being civilised that you help out people who are fleeing persecution.

I dont think what's in it for me is the first thought that comes to mind.

You help the people and they cna become productive members of society or when they return to their own, then the country is seen in a good light as helping them in a time of need.

If you look at our history then there have been waves of immigrants all of whom have been absorbed into society.

You get the diplomatic bonus as viewed by other countries.

You miss the point if all you cna think of is a cost benefit analysis.

Reply 18

IYGB

Original post by TelAviv

The media told me they're all doctors, engineers and lawyers.

UK should be like Germany and accept 1m+ refugees so they get as much benefit as possible!

Reply 19

Themini

Original post by Ladbants

Haven't they contributed enough? We're the ones who propped up those oppressive dictators, gave them weapons for decades..and then armed fundamentalist militants who made their lives a living misery.. btw we're still arming different shia and other radical islamist groups in the region and we're droning their countries ffs..They don't have houses, jobs or a stable life back home - we've destroyed that.
So the least we can do is take a few in when we've destroyed their country for our own economic benefits. >inb4 Islamic apologist, leftist etc..all the other bs. Just an honest opinion.