Should we let in more refugees from Syria and Iraq?

Should we? They are fleeing war and persecution but a lot of them are Muslims...

Its really problematic because there are really people who want to live a better secure life but a lot of isis supporters etc exploit the fact we are taking in refugees and come into the country and commit terror crimes for their own terrorist reasons which is making it more dangerous to take in refugees but there is still a lot of people who want to live who are innocent. Ah

Reply 2

TercioOfParma

18

No. They should go to Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, they have plenty of room, are close and have a similar culture.

Reply 3

username2313507

14

No, we can help more of them in better ways if they stay in their geographical region.

How much do you think it costs to fly over, document, house and provide for one Syrian family? I bet it works out to at least £10k.

So many more people could be helped if this money was reallocated to sending long-term rebuilding supplies to affected areas. Literally thousands of people could live in high-quality tents with supplies for the cost of bringing a few hundred refugees all the way to the UK.

The current system seems like a token gesture to make people feel good about themselves whilst ignoring the millions of other people in need.

Helping people properly in their own regions also means Europe doesn't have to take millions of undocumented refugees. It's obvious this approach to the system doesn't work - as shown by recent events!

Reply 4

MildredMalone

16

Absolutely not. Surely mainland Europe demonstrates why?

Even if they're "not" muslims, they still rape and kill our people.

Reply 5

Jammy Duel

21

They don't need to travel across a continent to be relatively safe, simple as that, and those that want to kill, let them kill their own kind.

Reply 6

Trapz99

21

No. It's far too unsafe to take in these people.

Reply 7

Legendary Quest

16

Yes, particularly families stuck in camps in places like Jordan.

Reply 8

dadaismx

Wish u could take in the cool ones and drop the jerks on the bottom of the ocean! I dont believe al Syrians are bad ( at least i dont really know their specie )

Reply 9

Foo.mp4

**** to the no! Are you out of your mind!?

Reply 10

zigglr

18

Original post by faston2k16

Should we? They are fleeing war and persecution but a lot of them are Muslims...

No, you are seeing the result of this in Germany and France.

Muslim refugee intake will be completely stopped after Brexit, as the EU controlled most of our refugee intake amount.

Reply 11

MrsSheldonCooper

20

Oh Lord no. Look at the things that have happened to Europe after we have.

Reply 12

Galaxie501

15

No.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 13

jeremy1988

13

There are just too many of them. I don't think the country's resources can handle the added financial burden. Just practically speaking.

Reply 14

LukeAD2

Yes, but with some exceptions. We must only let in those who are willing to learn English, integrate into British society as well as have valuable skills that are truly needed in this country (Doctor etc.) and never claim benefits for 5 years. Although, this will be a difficult to arrange and cost an extraordinary amount, it will be really beneficial to British society. Therefore, if we are unable to do this, we must send them all back as increased migration will only put extra strain on our services, consumes our houses during the crisis and compete with low skilled workers in the job market, ultimately leading to more money spent on the welfare state. Besides, we can't have Muslim migrants, they are incompatible with our way of life, Germany demonstrated this perfectly.

Reply 15

HanSoloLuck

2

Original post by faston2k16

Should we? They are fleeing war and persecution but a lot of them are Muslims...

Only if they can prove that they aren't Muslim and are actually from the region.

Many of the 'refugees' are black or obviously from other parts of the region like Pakistan, Syrians have a unique racial appearance and it's obvious that the majority applying for asylum are not Syrian. We can tell from first glance that the blacks making up the lion's share of applicants are NOT FROM SYRIA.

The system itself would be able to cope and we would be able to help all, Muslims included, from Iraq AND Syria if it weren't being abused by so many. Incidentally, this is why their countries are not functional places, the majority over there (Africa, and the Middle East) don't give a flying hoot if they break a system designed to get women and children our of a warzone, so long as they can get free stuff.

With this in mind, we should have a religious test for ALL and a biological test to ascertain regional heritage. Those that are caught trying to steal a spot in the queue from women and children should be detained and sent to work the mines in Siberia, if we don't have mines in Siberia then make some.

Reply 16

john2054

6

Original post by HanSoloLuck

Only if they can prove that they aren't Muslim and are actually from the region.

Many of the 'refugees' are black or obviously from other parts of the region like Pakistan, Syrians have a unique racial appearance and it's obvious that the majority applying for asylum are not Syrian. We can tell from first glance that the blacks making up the lion's share of applicants are NOT FROM SYRIA.

The system itself would be able to cope and we would be able to help all, Muslims included, from Iraq AND Syria if it weren't being abused by so many. Incidentally, this is why their countries are not functional places, the majority over there (Africa, and the Middle East) don't give a flying hoot if they break a system designed to get women and children our of a warzone, so long as they can get free stuff.

With this in mind, we should have a religious test for ALL and a biological test to ascertain regional heritage. Those that are caught trying to steal a spot in the queue from women and children should be detained and sent to work the mines in Siberia, if we don't have mines in Siberia then make some.