The Student Room Group

What are the benefits of taking in refugees?

I agree that immigration can bring benefits, but surely it is better to allow high skilled immigrants who fill a skills gap to enter instead of refugees since not all refugees possess skills that we need?

Many refugees can't work in the UK do to having little qualifications or bad English. Therefore they would have to be supported with benefits which ultimately place a burden on the taxpayer. So why should we take refugees when we can take in high-skilled migrants instead who can fills the skills gaps?

Scroll to see replies

Picture, for one moment, the situation that Italy and Greece (the two main countries that these immigrants landed in) if Germany hadn't opened its borders. They would be suffering the full weight of the problems they cause, both the problems caused by mass movement of people and also the various but scarce problems associated with extremism. The burden has been spread across Europe, which means that these two economies are less likely to struggle.

Also, saving lives.
humanity
They improve the economy or so I have heard
It's not about the benefit. It's about the fact that they desperately need help.
Original post by biglad2k16
I agree that immigration can bring benefits, but surely it is better to allow high skilled immigrants who fill a skills gap to enter instead of refugees since not all refugees possess skills that we need?

Many refugees can't work in the UK do to having little qualifications or bad English. Therefore they would have to be supported with benefits which ultimately place a burden on the taxpayer. So why should we take refugees when we can take in high-skilled migrants instead who can fills the skills gaps?



Are you talking about the policy for generla immigration or for refugees?
You fail to differentiate the two.

Refugees is specifically about helping people who are fleeing persecution.
Original post by biglad2k16
So why should we take refugees when we can take in high-skilled migrants instead who can fills the skills gaps?


Because the houses in the home countries of the high-skilled migrants haven't been blown up, I would assume.
Reply 7
Not much, really. It's more of an altruistic policy.
Reply 8
But one could argue that a government should do what is best for their country and since refugees are a cost and not a benefit, there is no point taking them in...
The question should be why aren't middle east countries taking in refugees? If the situation was reversed and we were fleeing Europe, do you expect Saudi and the other gulf states to let us in?
Original post by Charzhino
The question should be why aren't middle east countries taking in refugees? If the situation was reversed and we were fleeing Europe, do you expect Saudi and the other gulf states to let us in?

Middle Eastern countries are taking in refugees. Approximately 5million Syrian refugees are in other ME countries.

You hold Saudi and the UK to the same standards?
Original post by Plagioclase
It's not about the benefit. It's about the fact that they desperately need help.


So tell me, why are we allowing asylum seekers from countries not affected by the Syria Crisis?

I'm all for providing a safe haven for genuine Syrian and Iraqi refugees fleeing ISIS and war, not the opportunists.
Original post by teenhorrorstory
Middle Eastern countries are taking in refugees. Approximately 5million Syrian refugees are in other ME countries.

You hold Saudi and the UK to the same standards?


Reply 13
The cost of admitting a refugee here is much more important than in a neighbouring country, thus making it much less efficient in terms of "saving lives". You can save many more lives by giving $1bn to a neighbouring country (as living costs are dramatically lower there) than using this money at home on imported refugees (where a refugee costs about $25K a year).
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 14
Well the biggest one is that we then don't have their slaughter on our collective hands..

Other wise;
1] cheap labour
2]dedicated and hard working workers
3] potential to fill gaps in industry and indeed areas that have become depressed
4] we started and/or helped the collapse of these countries thus we should take responsibility
etc.
Original post by Dodgypirate

??
Original post by teenhorrorstory
??


Can you provide me with a source? You claimed that ME countries have taken in refugees from Syria...
Original post by Napp
Well the biggest one is that we then don't have their slaughter on our collective hands..

Other wise;
1] cheap labour
2]dedicated and hard working workers
3] potential to fill gaps in industry and indeed areas that have become depressed
4] we started and/or helped the collapse of these countries thus we should take responsibility
etc.


Cheap labour is a benefit?

To who?

Your #2 and #3: UK should use those resources on their own people.
Original post by Napp
Well the biggest one is that we then don't have their slaughter on our collective hands..

Other wise;
1] cheap labour
2]dedicated and hard working workers
3] potential to fill gaps in industry and indeed areas that have become depressed
4] we started and/or helped the collapse of these countries thus we should take responsibility
etc.


isn't this what germany tried to do?
Reply 19
Original post by 0to100
Cheap labour is a benefit?

To who?

Your #2 and #3: UK should use those resources on their own people.


To the country as a whole.

Yeah they should however the British worker is fundamentally lazy to be perfectly honest and many refuse to fill certain jobs such as fruit picking and janitorial staff whilst migrants are happy to do those jobs. Yet the Poms then shout how their jobs are being stolen when they refuse to do them...

Quick Reply

Latest